Next Article in Journal
Christian Missions and the Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Injustice in Contemporary Islamic Theology: Explanation, Punishment and the Hereafter
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Religions
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/rel16101303
religions-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mechanisms of Creativity: Interpretive Malleability in Guan Di Worship on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia

by
Xiang Li
1,
Siew Kian Ong
1,* and
Danny Tze Ken Wong
2,*
1
Department of Chinese Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
2
Department of History Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Religions 2025, 16(10), 1303; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101303
Submission received: 27 May 2025 / Revised: 29 September 2025 / Accepted: 9 October 2025 / Published: 14 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Religion and Creativity)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This multidisciplinary study investigates the enduring vitality of Guan Di worship on Peninsular Malaysia’s West Coast by proposing and systematically testing ‘Interpretive Malleability’ as a core explanatory mechanism. This is achieved through an integrated methodology combining historical anthropology, GIS spatial data, and a dual comparative analysis. By examining cases across different regions and historical periods, this analysis, both synchronic and diachronic, assesses how the mechanism operates in varied contexts. The study defines ‘Interpretive Malleability’ as a two-part process: an ‘Inherent Potential’ within the symbol, rooted in the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype’, and a ‘Local Generative Process’ activated by local actors. Findings reveal that the uniqueness and vitality of Guan Di’s cult are forged in practice-oriented domains through the creative agency of its followers. Ultimately, this study offers a mechanism-based, agency-centered framework for understanding religious resilience, highlighting the dynamic interplay between a symbol’s intrinsic structure and local creative engagement.

1. Introduction

To walk along the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia is to witness the extraordinary and ubiquitous presence of a single deity. His image shifts and adapts to each new context. In a solemn temple, he might appear as a majestic warrior, clad in armor and wielding his iconic blade, a symbol of ultimate protection. Yet, in a quiet study or a clan association hall, he could be depicted as a robed scholar, thoughtfully reading the Spring and Autumn Annals (春秋), embodying civil virtues. Turn a corner into a bustling restaurant or a bus ticketing counter, and it is often that same imposing, martial effigy found overlooking the cash register, seamlessly transformed from a god of war into a powerful guardian of prosperity. He is just as present in modern shopping malls as he is in temples adorned with carved beams and painted rafters, where the smoke of coiled incense spirals around a constant stream of devotees. Then, amidst the daily traffic of Shah Alam, the astonishing adaptability of this deity comes into sharp focus. A yellow rescue vehicle stands out, not for its size, but for the immense totem emblazoned on its side: Guan Di, wielding his Green Dragon Crescent Blade, under the banner ‘Righteousness Covers the Heavens’ (義蓋雲天) (Figure 1).
This capacity for functional application is then complemented by a spectacular display of his multifaceted nature during events like the Malaysia International Guan Gong Cultural Festival (MIGGCF). In 2023, the festival’s procession through Petaling Street (茨廠街) became a grand stage where his diverse Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist personas were simultaneously paraded and celebrated (Figure 2). Heralded by towering thirty-foot banners and led by lion dance troupes, the parade of Guan Di statues was escorted by a column of national and state flags. The event drew hundreds of participants and a diverse crowd of onlookers, including international tourists and non-Chinese devotees, transforming the city’s streets into a vibrant, cross-cultural ritual field.
These vibrant contemporary scenes illustrate Guan Di’s astonishing adaptability and his multifaceted presence across diverse social domains. This raises the central inquiry of this study: What are the underlying mechanisms that grant this particular deity such exceptional vitality and malleability? This study argues that the answer lies in a unique mechanism termed ‘Interpretive Malleability,’ which is co-driven by the symbolic potential rooted in the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype’ and the ‘Local Generative Process’ that activates it. Such a mechanism allows different communities to creatively reinterpret and utilize its symbolism to meet their own specific needs, thereby ensuring the faith’s enduring vitality and relevance.

2. Research Methods and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Research Site

The selection of the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia as the primary research site is empirically driven, establishing it as a unique socio-religious field (Bourdieu 1977) for this study. Guan Di worship flourishes here, vital to the lived religion of Malaysian Chinese (McGuire 2008). This study surveyed over 160 potential sites (Figure 3), with 89 investigated in-depth (as detailed in Table A1, which includes 69 temples, 10 associations, 6 Koo Saing Wooi Koon 古城會, 2 organisations, 1 Kongsi 公司, and 1 Clan).2 The analysis reveals a stark geographical concentration: 85 of these 89 investigated sites (95.5%) are located on the West Coast (Table 1). Complementing this spatial concentration is a significant temporal depth, as detailed in Table 2. The establishment of these worship sites spans from the early 19th century to the present day, with a notable peak during the post-independence era (1950–2000), a period of intense socio-economic transformation.
This profound spatio-temporal concentration, spanning from the early 19th century to the present, makes the region a microcosm of the Malaysian Chinese religious ecosystem. The West Coast’s history is deeply intertwined with the key arteries of economic activity, such as trade in its riverine and port city settlements, tin mining, and railway development, making it an ideal laboratory for examining the interplay between religious practice and socio-economic change. It is important to note that this study primarily focuses on sites where Guan Di is the main object of worship. If ancillary deity (配祀神) sites were also included, this geographical correlation would likely become even more pronounced. The West Coast is, therefore, the essential arena for this study. It was here that the social functions and cultural resonance of Guan Di worship were most acutely tested, proving the cult’s demonstrable vitality through the creative practices of ‘interpretive malleability.’

2.2. Research Methods

This study employs a multidisciplinary research design that synergizes qualitative historical ethnography with a multi-scale spatial analysis. The empirical core of this research is built upon three years of intensive multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork. This fieldwork involved investigating 89 confirmed sites of Guan Di worship, collecting their geographical coordinates (Table A1), and gathering photographic documentation and in-depth interview data.
Drawing inspiration from established frameworks in settlement geography, this study adopts a ‘macro-meso-micro’ analytical progression. The methodological objective is not merely to describe spatial layouts, but to use spatial patterns as an investigative starting point that prompts a deeper inquiry into how and why the exceptional ‘Interpretive Malleability’ of Guan Di worship manifests in different socio-historical contexts.
A dedicated GIS database was established using ‘OpenStreetMap’ as the foundational mapping platform. The GIS-based spatial analysis, conducted in ArcGIS, unfolds in a deliberate, multi-scale sequence. The analysis begins at the macro-scale with the overall distribution pattern. To quantitatively measure the degree of spatial imbalance across states, the Geographic Concentration Index (Gini coefficient) is used (calculated at 0.5289). Subsequently, the Nearest Neighbor Index (NNI) provides a quantitative baseline (R-value = 0.474582, Z-score = −9.482673, p < 0.01), statistically confirming that the overall point pattern is highly clustered, not random.
Moving to the meso-scale, this study delves into the spatial morphology of identified clusters. The analysis shifts to visualizing clustering intensity and identifying core hotspots through Kernel Density Estimation (KDE). To ensure the robustness of this analysis, the search radius for the KDE was determined in ArcGIS using the spherical function method. This approach is complemented by the use of Standard Deviational Ellipses (SDE), also executed within ArcGIS, to delineate and compare the directional trends and dispersion of the clusters over time. The integration of KDE with a robust bandwidth selection method and SDE provides a comprehensive understanding of the evolving spatial patterns of the clusters.
Finally, at the micro-scale, the analysis transitions from spatial description to functional interpretation. Having identified key clusters, the inquiry turns to why they formed in those specific ways. GIS is strategically used here to test hypotheses concerning the differing adaptations of Guan Di worship, for instance, within ‘Sin Sze Si Ya temples’ (仙四師爺廟) in the tin mining belt versus through the ‘fenxiang’3 networks and itinerant spirit mediums characteristic of Hokkien communities. This micro-level analysis, detailed in subsequent sections, is crucial for revealing the mechanisms of ‘Interpretive Malleability’ in action.
By adopting this multi-scale framework, this study transforms GIS from a descriptive tool into an analytical instrument, allowing the research to first map broad patterns and then ‘zoom in’ with rich ethnographic and historical data to explain the activation of a symbol’s unique potential.
Furthermore, to rigorously test the exceptionalism of ‘Interpretive Malleability,’ this study employs a dual comparative analysis, comprising both a synchronic contrast of Guan Di with other key deities (Mazu 媽祖, Guanyin 觀音, Datuk Gong 拿督公) and a diachronic exploration of his evolving personas. The diachronic lens, in turn, situates Guan Di’s trajectory alongside those of other foundational figures worldwide who have been similarly elevated into multifaceted symbols. While these global precedents point to the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype,’ this study reframes this concept not as a monolithic mechanism, but as a spectrum of interpretive potential. The research then demonstrates that Guan Di’s symbolism occupies a uniquely potent position on this spectrum, characterized by a profound malleability that distinguishes it from other instantiations of the same underlying process. This analytical move enables the study to transcend mere typological comparison, facilitating an in-depth inquiry into the specific conditions that cultivate such exceptional symbolic resilience.

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Scholarship on Chinese religion in Malaysia has largely proceeded along two complementary paths: a historical approach tracing the ‘transplantation’ of social structures (Wang 1991; Yen 1986, pp. 35–40), and an ethnographic one detailing their subsequent ‘localization’ (Tan 2018; DeBernardi 2006). While powerfully illuminating the outcomes of adaptation, the analytical focus of these traditions often remains on external socio-cultural forces. Consequently, the cultural symbol itself is frequently treated as a passive receptacle, its own intrinsic properties that enable profound adaptability left largely unexamined. Yet, as anthropological work on Malaysian Hakka identity suggests, cultural persistence and change hinge on how communities actively and strategically interpret symbols to define themselves (Carstens 2005, pp. 101–27). This observation prompts this study’s central inquiry: what intrinsic qualities make a symbol like Guan Di so exceptionally potent and malleable for this process of creative, agentive interpretation within the Malaysian context?
To address this gap, this study proposes ‘Interpretive Malleability’ as its core analytical framework. This framework does not emerge from a vacuum; it draws significantly on and seeks to build upon existing scholarly work that illuminates the complex, adaptable, and historically layered nature of Guan Di’s symbolism. The concept of the ‘superscribed symbols’ is particularly pertinent, arguing that the meanings of potent symbols like Guan Di are not static but are formed and reformed through continuous historical interpretation and layering by different social actors. Crucially, this ‘superscribing’ theory also emphasizes a significant ‘path dependency’ in this evolutionary process: new ‘inscriptions’ of meaning occur within the constraints of existing historical discursive frameworks and memory carriers, allowing memory to demonstrate historical continuity even as it is ‘forged’ (Duara 1988). The construction and dissemination of Guan Di’s symbolic meaning often reveal a complex interplay between official power and folk practices. On one hand, as Watson (Watson 1985) observes in his discussion of the ‘standardization of deities,’ state power or cultural elites frequently attempt to unify and regulate diverse local deity worship. By promoting officially recognized narratives and rituals, they aim to shape a ‘standard’ image and ‘orthodox’ status for these deities. This perspective helps us understand the imperial enfeoffments and official sacrifices dedicated to Guan Di through various dynasties, reflecting deliberate efforts to sculpt his core symbolism around ‘loyalty and righteousness’. Ter Haar (2017)’s research, however, illuminates another dimension of belief emergence. He argues that the rise in Guan Di worship was not entirely driven by premeditated hero worship or official promotion but involved significant ‘contingency.’ In his view, oral culture—such as miracle stories and local legends spread by migrating populations—and ‘spontaneous diffusion’ among devotees played crucial roles in the faith’s initial construction. This outlook challenges traditional paradigms that may have overemphasized the decisive influence of official enfeoffment and elite literature in early belief formation, instead highlighting the original impetus of folk and spontaneous elements.
How, then, do these seemingly different, even tense, cultural layers coexist? Katz (2008)’s concept of ‘cogeneration,’ proposed in his research on The Cult of Marshal Wen (溫元帥信仰), offers a compelling explanation. He points out that a belief’s multiple cultural layers are not necessarily in a relationship of mutual replacement; in many cases, they can form and develop in parallel. Peng (2020)’s sociological analysis further corroborates this fusion of multiple forces. He emphasizes that Guan Di’s success as a popular deity lies not only in his ability to integrate diverse religious elements (Confucian, Buddhist, Daoist) and embody universal ethics, but also in the dynamic interaction between official recognition and popular worship within his cult. It is this interaction that allows Guan Di’s symbolism to effectively bridge the official and folk spheres, thereby gaining state-level reverence while simultaneously meeting the diverse needs of different social groups.
However, while existing frameworks adeptly explain the conditions that fostered his veneration, they do not fully elucidate the internal mechanisms that grant his symbolism such exceptional adaptability. Building upon these scholarly foundations, this study puts forth ‘Interpretive Malleability’ as the core analytical framework. This study defines it not merely as a static attribute, but as a dynamic, two-part mechanism that explains the enduring vitality and adaptability of Guan Di worship:
(1)
Inherent Potential: The Persistence of the Human Prototype. The first mechanism is the symbol’s ‘Inherent Potential’—a unique symbolic structure providing the rich ‘raw material’ for creative adaptation. Its primary engine is the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype.’ Unlike deities whose perfected divine personas supersede their mortal origins, the historical, relatable, and morally complex figure of the human ‘Guan Yu’ is never fully erased. This enduring prototype creates a vast and fertile interpretive space between the flawed hero and the perfected sage-emperor, serving as the ultimate cognitive and emotional anchor that invites constant re-interpretation. In essence, the ‘persistence of the human prototype’ is the foundational reason why Guan Di’s symbolism is so polysemic and his narrative so open. It prevents the symbol from becoming a rigid, one-dimensional icon and instead maintains it as a dynamic, living narrative, furnishing his cult with a uniquely broad and resilient foundation for creative reinterpretation.
(2)
The Local Generative Process. The second mechanism is the ‘Local Generative Process.’ This process is activated when a ‘Generative Impetus’, an urgent functional or symbolic need within a local community, such as survival pressures, a crisis of trust, or identity anxiety, prompts local actors to creatively re-purpose the symbol’s inherent potential through a series of ‘Generative Mechanisms.’
It is this combination of inherent potential and a dynamic generative process that grants Guan Di his remarkable uniqueness, setting him apart from other deities. With this theoretical framework established, the following sections will employ this lens to analyze the specific manifestations of Guan Di’s Interpretive Malleability across different historical, cultural, and geographical contexts.
The concept of ‘the persistence of the human prototype’ also deepens the dialogue with broader theories of deification. It refines the classical model of Euhemerism, which often posits a linear process where a perfected divine persona substitutes and erases its complex human origin (Bulfinch 1867). In contrast, this framework argues for a dynamic co-existence. The human ‘Guan Yu’ is not a mere historical footnote but a perpetually accessible anchor for interpretation. This explains why his cult can simultaneously generate profound reverence and irreconcilable conflict. This concept also extends the Cognitive Science of Religion’s (CSR) theory of Minimally Counterintuitive Concepts (MCI). While the idea of a deified general is cognitively ‘sticky’ and easily transmitted (Boyer 2007), MCI theory primarily explains cultural transmission, not the profound interpretive generativity of a specific cult. The ‘persistence of the human prototype’ fills this gap by demonstrating that it is the rich, morally complex, and deeply human narrative, rather than just a simple counterintuitive tag, that provides the vast raw material for creative re-purposing.
This also helps explain why other historical figures, who might also possess complex human backstories, did not achieve the same level of adaptive success. They may have possessed a similar latent potential but missed the crucial ‘historical tailwind’ of the specific alignment of social, economic, and political pressures that propelled Guan Di’s cult to prominence. The ‘Interpretive Malleability’ of Guan Di was thus not merely an unfolding of its immanent nature. Instead, it was a dynamic process forged in the crucible of history, where symbolic structure met historical necessity.

3. Manifestations of Malleability: Comparative Studies

3.1. Exotic Imagination and Local Re-Creation

Guan Di’s image and associated narratives have a long history of dissemination, encompassing diverse interpretive dimensions far beyond their original Chinese cultural matrix. The cross-cultural journey of Guan Di worship powerfully illustrates this dynamic. These interactions, often filled with ‘creative misreadings’ and ‘proactive re-creations,’ attest to the remarkable elasticity of his symbolism. However, such imaginative engagement only deepens into systematic ‘appropriation’ when driven by a strong local impetus.
In Europe, this re-articulation was driven by a symbolic need to comprehend a distant and mysterious ‘Orient’. For instance, the 17th-century Dutch writer Olfert Dapper, based on second-hand accounts, performed a thorough functional reconstruction. In his influential yet imaginative ‘Image of Guan Di Gong Reading at Night (關公夜讀圖)’ by Figure 4, he ‘filled’ the symbolic vacuum of a Chinese founder by conflating Guan Di into a composite figure embodying ‘Vitey’ (黃帝) and ‘Tzintzon’ (秦始皇).4 Furthermore, in the authoritative Novus Atlas Sinensis, a visual re-imagining occurred (Martini 1655), where the cartouche of the Sichuan province map prominently features Guan Di, rendered in a European Baroque style (Figure 5). Even earlier, the late 16th-century Spanish Boxer Codex demonstrated a more subtle mechanism: cultural analogy. To meet the need for local comprehension, its Spanish text initiated a crucial semantic shift by drawing an analogy between Guan Di and Saint James, a military saint familiar to Western readers.5 Together, these works reveal the complex processes by which a potent cultural symbol is perceived and reinterpreted in early global encounters.
This phenomenal level of reshaping stands in stark contrast to the Western perception of another important deity from the same period, the sea goddess Mazu. Although Western documents record various transliterations of Mazu’s name, her core identity as a maritime protector was consistently recognized. People rarely see the kind of functional reconstruction applied to Mazu.6 This significant difference in reception indirectly highlights the remarkable complexity and polysemy inherent in Guan Di’s symbolic system.
Within the East Asian cultural sphere, this adaptive re-articulation was driven by more specific religious and political needs. In Japan, at ‘Manpuku-ji (萬福寺)’, a case of symbolic subsumption occurred. The need was to define the role of a three-eyed deity within the temple. This need was met by ‘filling’ the role with Guan Di, who had already absorbed the functions of the declining deity Hua Guang Da Di (華光大帝) to become the preeminent ‘Sangharama (伽藍菩薩)’. The monk ‘Muju Dōchū (無著道忠)’ recorded this identification in his Zenrin Shōkisen (禪林象器笺), despite significant iconographic deviations.7
Similarly, in Korea’s Chosŏn Dynasty, a political recalibration of the deity occurred, driven by the need to strengthen royal authority. Monarchs, particularly from the reign of ‘King Yŏngjo’ onwards, portrayed ‘Kwanje’ (Guan Di) in royal Korean regalia, such as a ‘dragon robe’ and an ‘iksŏngwan’ (winged coronet). This ‘regal portrayal’ was a perfect illustration of his ‘flexible iconography’ being strategically ‘re-calibrated’ to ‘fill’ a political function (Lee 2020).
While these cases show symbolic recalibration and subsumption, the modern Korean emerging religion, Jeungsanism (甑山教), offers an even more extreme example of systematic appropriation that deepens our understanding of ‘Interpretive Malleability’. As documented by scholar Kim Tak, this case reveals the framework’s mechanics when activated by a prophetic founder’s ultimate ‘Generative Impetus’: the creation of a new religious cosmology.
In this new theological system, the founder Jeungsan instrumentalizes Guan Di in a manner far beyond simple reinterpretation. He employs ultimate ‘Generative Mechanisms’ by systematically subordinating Guan Di to the rank of a subordinate general who serves Jeungsan’s own cosmic ‘public works’. This demotion is so absolute that Jeungsan claims the authority to dispatch Guan Di’s spirit to the West to start World War I, using him as a direct tool. Jeungsan’s creative authority is further asserted through his authoring of a powerful and unique chant, the ‘Chant of Yun-jang’ (雲長咒), and his ultimate demonstration of dominance by changing his own face into that of Guan Di.8
This complete appropriation was possible because the symbol’s ‘Inherent Potential’, Guan Di’s non-absolute divinity rooted in the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype’, made him uniquely susceptible to subordination within a new pantheon. Thus, the Jeungsanism case serves as a profound supplement to our understanding, showcasing the furthest limits of ‘Interpretive Malleability’ by moving beyond syncretism into a model of complete theological instrumentalization driven by a prophetic founder.
If the adaptations in East Asia show appropriation within a shared cultural matrix, the most radical expression of ‘Interpretive Malleability’ is found in the crucible of New World diasporic communities. This adaptive re-articulation is found most notably in Cuba, a setting that shares a striking historical parallel with Malaya. Both regions witnessed a massive influx of Chinese migrants during the mid-to-late 19th century, a period of intense social formation under colonial economies.
It was in this crucible of cultural encounter that Guan Gong underwent a profound transformation in Cuba, resulting in the syncretic figure of ‘San Fancón’ (Gregor and Yang 2014). This triple fusion of Chinese, Catholic, and African traditions creates a profound tension, as the process involved a fundamental recharacterization that stands in stark contrast to Guan Gong’s original persona. In Cuba, San Fancón is described as a warrior, but also ‘a great talker, a womanizer, a boaster, a good friend, fond of partying, red wine, and apples,’ traits borrowed directly from the vibrant and tempestuous African Orisha, Changó. This personality is in direct opposition to the traditional image of Guan Yu, a paragon of Confucian virtues embodying solemn righteousness, loyalty, and unwavering gravity.
While other major transnational deities like Guanyin and Mazu also undergo syncretism, their transformations often follow a clearer path of functional analogy. Likewise, in Cuba, Guanyin merged with the Virgin Mary and the African Orisha Ochún, both figures of feminine compassion. Similarly, Mazu, the protector of seafarers, is often identified with Stella Maris (Star of the Sea), a maritime aspect of the Virgin Mary. In stark contrast, the transformation of Guan Gong into ‘San Fancón’—a new entity absorbed into a different mythological system and given a personality that subverts his original moral core—represents a more profound level of symbolic absorption and reconfiguration. This case powerfully demonstrates how the open structure of Guan Di’s symbolism can accommodate and integrate even radically different cultural inputs, a process that goes far beyond simple analogy or functional substitution.

3.2. Localization in Comparison

While the Cuban case highlights extreme malleability, comparing Guan Di with other deities in Malaysia reveals the specific social and cultural domains where his distinctiveness truly lies.
Jia and Li (2018) proposed a three-stage model for Guan Di worship in Southeast Asia: ‘family, community, and supra-community.’ While valuable, this focus on diffusion patterns, like other surveys of key temples and texts, may not fully capture the source of his distinctiveness.9 This study argues that Guan Di’s uniqueness lies not in a generic pattern of expansion, but in how his presence extends beyond the conventional domains of temples and household altars into an exceptional breadth of institutional and cultural spheres:
Guan Di’s influence permeates a unique spectrum of social spheres, demonstrating his exceptional interpretive malleability. He is a central figure in traditional ‘Kongsi’ (公司) and sworn brotherhoods (‘Koo Saing Wooi Koon’ 劉關張趙古城會; Figure 6), and his influence also extends to modern religious movements. In this domain, he holds a core position within the ‘Church of Virtue’ (德教会), a prominent syncretic religion harmonizing the ‘Five Teachings’. Furthermore, he has become the central figure for secular organizations like the MIGGCF Promotion Center, which frames him as a transnational cultural symbol. The MIGGCF’s sustained success and its unique model of rotational hosting across Southeast Asia represent a phenomenon rarely seen for other deity cults. This pervasive capacity to bridge diverse social and cultural domains offers a unique insight into his potential for symbolic abstraction and universalization (Gao 2020). Beyond the religious and secular, he is deeply embedded in folk-art and martial subcultures, widely venerated by countless ‘lion dance troupes’ (醒獅團). A prime example is the multiple-time world champion ‘Kun Seng Keng Lion & Dragon Dance Association’ (關聖宮龍獅團), for whom Guan Di serves as a patron saint embodying the martial virtue and righteous solidarity essential to their discipline. It is this exceptional capacity for institutional and cultural penetration that the present study seeks to explain.
To test the exceptionality of Guan Di’s malleability, the most potent local comparison is with the ‘Datuk Gong’, a ubiquitous deity in Malaysia and a prime example of religious syncretism. As scholarly work by Wang and others has shown, the Datuk Gong cult is a dynamic fusion of Malay ‘keramat’ (sacred place/spirit) worship and Chinese ‘Tudi Shen’ (土地神) concepts. Its adaptability is undeniable, evolving to encompass various ethnicities, genders, and ritual forms, becoming a quintessential symbol of Malaysian Chinese identity (Wang 2022; Wang et al. 2020). More than just a syncretic phenomenon, ‘worshipping the Other’ in the form of the Datuk Gong carries multiple layers of meaning for Malaysian Chinese communities.
However, the malleability of Datuk Gong operates within a fundamentally different paradigm. At its core, the Datuk Gong is a territorial deity, a spirit whose authority is intrinsically anchored to a specific locality—a piece of land, a tree, a village, or a construction site. His function, though syncretic, is ultimately defined by his role as the guardian of that place. As Wang notes in his field research, a local village chief explained that: “the Datuk Gong manages our village, and he cannot cross the border.” The adaptability of the Datuk Gong cult, therefore, is best conceptualized as a ‘deepening of localization’: it modifies the identity of the local spirit to fit the multi-ethnic landscape, but its core function remains steadfastly tied to the land.
In stark contrast, Guan Di’s ‘Interpretive Malleability’ is characterized by a ‘transcending of functions’. His symbolic power is not anchored to any piece of land but to a portable, universalizable narrative of loyalty, righteousness, and brotherhood. This allows his symbol to be detached from any specific location and be reprogrammed for entirely different social and even abstract domains. This is reflected in his diverse roles, iconography, and nomenclature. His image can shift from a martial god to a civil scholar reading the Spring and Autumn Annals, and his titles range from the ‘imperial’ to the deeply personal and geographical, such as ‘Shan Xi Fu Zi’ (山西夫子), a name found on incense pouches carried by early immigrants.
This uniqueness is further underscored when Guan Di is compared with other deified historical figures prevalent among Chinese communities in Malaysia. For instance, the worship of ‘Lu Ban’ (魯班), the patron saint of craftsmen, remains largely confined to the sphere of artisans, his persona and functions steadfastly anchored to his historical role. Similarly, while other heroes from the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, like ‘Zhao Zilong’ (趙子龍) and ‘Zhou Cang’ (周倉), are also venerated in their own temples across the peninsula, their images and narratives consistently adhere to the original epic. They are revered as the historical heroes they were, but they have not evolved into a multifaceted ‘Di’ (Emperor) capable of transcending their original context in the way Guan Yu has. It is precisely this capacity to transcend his historical origins and functional specificity that distinguishes Guan Di. The exceptional malleability of his symbolism, therefore, is not a universal trait of all deified figures but a unique structural property of his cult.
Having established his unique functional transcendence in comparison to other deities, this study now turns to a specific historical case—the secret societies—to examine how this malleability was applied in high-stakes practice.

3.3. The Secret Society Nexus

In the conflict-ridden social landscape of late imperial China, particularly in its southeastern regions, secret societies like the Tiandihui had already forged a powerful model for social mobilization. Amid rising social conflicts in late Qing China, especially prevalent clan conflicts and secret society activities in Fujian and Guangdong, Guan Di’s narrative of ‘sworn brotherhood among different surnames’ provided a powerful cultural template for ‘ritual kinship’ (Leyton 2018).
This model drew from a deep cultural repertoire, among which the epic Romance of the Three Kingdoms held a foundational impact. Its narrative of ‘loyalty and righteousness’ provided a potent moral and ethical framework for these societies. As Liu (2025) points out, Southeast Asian communities often ‘select what they need’ and ‘adapt for their own use’ when receiving ‘Chinese stories’, a process clearly evident in the secret societies’ engagement with the epic. The story of the ‘Oath of the Peach Garden’ (桃園結義), in particular, offered a sacred prototype for ‘ritual kinship’. This prototype was especially resonant for the many immigrants from these same feuding regions.
The study of these societies relies heavily on a combination of historical records from China and later observations in Malaya. Collectively, these sources confirm the existence of a highly symbolic and flexible ritual practice aimed at transforming literary narratives into living reality.10 These initiation ceremonies are not simple replications of traditional temple worship, but are creatively reinvented to serve the specific needs of a secretive, hierarchical organization. Rituals such as the symbolic crossing of the door, the jumping of the fire plate, and the drinking of blood wine are all designed to create a sacred, solemn atmosphere and forge an unbreakable brotherhood. Irrefutable historical evidence points to the centrality of Guan Di and the ‘Peach Garden’ narrative in these rituals. Official Qing Dynasty records, for instance, such as a minister’s report from 1817, explicitly mention the ‘Hall of Loyalty’ (忠義堂) and the ‘Spirit Tablet of Guan Di’ in connection with secret society activities (Figure 7). Even more compelling is the direct textual proof from within the societies themselves, exemplified by a sworn oath document from Tiandihui leader Lu Shenghai (盧盛海) in 1806, housed in the First Historical Archives of China. The oath’s declaration, ‘Since ancient times, none has surpassed Lord Guan in possessing both loyalty and righteousness’, positions Guan Di as the ultimate paragon of the society’s core values.11 Crucially, the line, ‘Tracing back to the Oath of the Peach Garden, brothers are no different from siblings born of the same parents’, explicitly invokes the narrative to construct a ‘fictive kinship’ that transcends blood ties. This invocation was not a rigid dogma; its spiritual core of ‘sworn brotherhood among different surnames’ (異姓結拜) and ‘sharing life and death’ (生死與共) possessed high malleability, allowing it to be translated into concrete mutual aid that addressed the basic survival needs of its members.
These historical accounts reveal a deep connection between the polysemy of Guandi’s beliefs and the mobilization strategy of the pragmatism of the secret society. These societies demonstrated a highly pragmatic strategy by flexibly activating Guan Di’s dual persona: his ‘martial valor’ was highlighted as a spiritual weapon during external conflicts, while his ethical symbolism of ‘loyalty and righteousness’ was emphasized to enforce internal discipline and cohesion.
Once transplanted to Malaya, this cultural template was not just replicated but intensified. In the lawless frontier society, driven by fierce secular strife over resources like tin mines, the secret societies such as the Ghee Hin (義興公司, meaning ‘Rise of Righteousness’) and Hai San became the de facto governing powers.12 Material culture also provides corroborating evidence, such as the watercolors from the National Museum of Singapore (Figure 8), which depict Guan Di’s statue as the focal point of Tiandihui and Ghee Hin Kongsi initiation ceremonies.
The deep connection between Guan Di’s polysemic symbolism and the societies’ pragmatic mobilization strategies is most evident in their selective activation of his persona, a duality that reached its dramatic climax in the Larut Wars (拉律戰爭). The conflict between the Hai San and Ghee Hin societies starkly highlights the complexities and tensions inherent in applying ‘Interpretive Malleability’. On one hand, this very malleability enabled each group to flexibly utilize Guan Di’s symbolism for their own organizational needs. On the other hand, the same adaptive quality meant that in the face of fundamental conflicts of interest, the shared symbol was not enough to bridge the divide. As Ong points out, although the Tiandihui system revered Guan Di, its core objects of worship were actually the ‘Five Ancestors.’ Guan Di was more strategically used as a model deity emphasizing the value of loyalty and righteousness, which explains the phenomenon of these organizations accepting imperial titles from the Qing court while still maintaining their internal narratives.13
Furthermore, the syncretic nature of secret society rituals, drawing from diverse cultural wellsprings in their homeland, also found expression in the Malayan context. The interplay between Cantonese opera traditions and Tiandihui rituals, for example, illustrates this fusion. As documented by scholars (Mai 1940; Xiao 1969), initiates in certain Tiandihui ceremonies, when asked about the symbolic boat they journeyed on to attend the ritual, were required to name the deities enshrined on board: Hua Guang Da Di (the patron deity of opera performers) at the bow, Tian Hou (天後, the Empress of Heaven, patroness of seafarers) at the stern, and Guan Di in the cabin. The absence of this specific questioning in earlier Tiandihui ritual pamphlets indicates the probable later integration of Cantonese opera traditions, a syncretic development that likely migrated with its practitioners to Malaya. In this new context, the society’s symbolic repertoire expanded further. The inclusion of Guan Di, the archetypal martial saint, alongside highly localized deities, demonstrates a sophisticated mechanism for symbolic bricolage: the capacity to weave together diverse symbolic resources to address new social realities. This mechanism is crucial for understanding the social cohesion of specific immigrant groups, such as the Huizhou Hakka, from which the influential leader Yap Ah Loy (葉亞來) emerged. Their case illustrates how a flexible symbolic framework, centered on figures like Guan Di, was instrumental in forging a collective identity.
Antony’s research on the 1802 Tiandihui uprising in Huizhou, Guangdong, for instance, suggests these Hakka communities were already deeply immersed in secret society cultures and their syncretic ritual practices in their homeland.14 Indeed, fieldwork for the current study confirms that the Sin Sze Si Ya Temple in Kuala Lumpur, a prominent site with strong Hakka and Yap Ah Loy connections, continues to enshrine Hua Guang Da Di, Tian Hou, and Guan Di together, indicating a continuity of these syncretic and adaptive ritual practices. Furthermore, fieldwork at the Sin Sze Si Ya Temple in Kuala Lumpur led to the discovery of a spirit tablet inscribed with ‘Spirit Tablet for the Departed Souls of the Imperial Qing’s Righteous and Brave’ (皇清義勇列位先靈). The unearthing of this tablet offers fresh insight into the temple’s intricate symbolic system, where the term ‘Imperial Qing’ indicates a connection to the Qing Dynasty, while ‘Righteous and Brave’ directly extols virtues of loyalty and martial valor.
In the turbulent social milieu of 19th-century Malaya, particularly within the context of Chinese secret societies, the veneration of such loyal and courageous sacrifice found strong resonance with the core virtues embodied by Guan Di, notably loyalty, righteousness, and valor, and with the martial ethos and ideals of collective struggle championed by these societies. This tablet likely served to enshrine and memorialize individuals or groups who displayed martial valor and sacrifice akin to those associated with Guan Di. This observation lends further credence to the strategy in early Kuala Lumpur, shaped by prominent figures like Yap Ah Loy, where religious sites were instrumental in integrating diverse symbolic resources to consolidate the community and project an image of martial prowess.
Conflicts between societies such as Hai San and Ghee Hin, therefore, starkly highlight the complexities and tensions inherent in applying Guan Di worship’s ‘Interpretive Malleability.’ When faced with intense economic and social pressures, particularly fundamental conflicts of material interest, the cohesive power of faith reveals its limits, as even a shared sacred connection can be temporarily suspended or reinterpreted to serve immediate needs. This further underscores that understanding the social functions of religious belief in specific historical contexts requires examining it within concrete power relations, economic structures, and social contradictions, rather than merely focusing on a static analysis of doctrines or symbols themselves. This tension points to a deeper paradox in the application of Guan Di’s symbolism, one best understood through the lens of group conflict. Guan Di, the quintessential symbol of martial prowess and sworn brotherhood, would logically be the ultimate spiritual patron for warfare.
While Guan Di is revered as the God of War, his divine authority paradoxically recedes in the very context of actual warfare. In the endemic armed conflicts between lineages or villages (鄉村宗族械鬥) of his followers’ homelands, his role as a martial protector was ironically suspended. Zhang (2023)’s research on these ‘classified conflicts’ illustrates how folk religion was instrumentalized for mobilization, a function that demanded exclusive, not universal, symbols. In a conflict requiring an absolute demarcation between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ a universally revered deity like Guan Di loses his utility as an exclusive banner. His role as a god of brotherhood is eclipsed by the immediate need for a god that is only our god. This void was filled by fiercely local patron deities such as Kai Zhang Sheng Wang (開漳聖王) for immigrants from Zhangzhou or the Three Mountains Kings (三山國王) for many Hakka communities who could effectively unify a specific group and sanctify its struggle against rivals. Therefore, Guan Di’s ‘functional retreat’ from these localized quarrels is not a sign of weakness but the ultimate testament to his trans-local strength. His universal appeal, the very quality that made him unsuitable for small-scale, exclusive conflicts, was precisely what rendered him the ideal ‘maximum common denominator’ for large-scale, inclusive organizations like the secret societies in Malaya. This ability to transcend hyperlocal identities, even at the cost of receding in certain contexts, powerfully demonstrates the most profound dimension of his ‘Interpretive Malleability’.
Ultimately, the secret societies’ engagement with Guan Di, from ritual re-enactments of the Peach Garden Oath to the selective activation of his dual persona and his strategic deployment alongside local deities, vividly illustrates ‘Interpretive Malleability’ in action. The intense ‘symbolic need’ for survival and cohesion in Malaya’s frontier society served as the generative impetus, activating a series of creative cultural adaptations. Narratives from Romance of the Three Kingdoms were mobilized to forge social trust; Guan Di’s polysemous symbolism was deployed to reconcile the dual demands of internal order and external conflict; and his universal appeal was used to carve out a niche within a complex local pantheon. The history of Guan Di worship within these societies is thus not a simple story of transplantation, but a testament to how a symbol’s inherent plasticity, when catalyzed by urgent social demands, generates profoundly resilient cultural forms.
This complex deployment of Guan Di’s symbolism reveals how his malleability operates under pressure. The final section, therefore, will dissect the foundational structure of his symbolic system to understand why it possesses such unique potential.

3.4. The Persistence of the Human Prototype

The preceding analyses have demonstrated the exceptional scope of Guan Di’s malleability. This section delves into the foundational reason for it: a unique cognitive structure within his cult that this study terms ‘the persistence of the human prototype’. This contrasts sharply with the ‘substitutive deification’ process often seen in the worship of other major deities among Chinese devotees, most notably Guanyin and Mazu. While their pre-deification identities, such as Princess ‘Miao Shan’ (妙善) or ‘Lin Mo’ (林默), serve as foundational origin myths, they are largely superseded in worship by the ultimate, perfected divine persona—the compassionate goddess or the Empress of Heaven. The tension between their human origins and divine status is resolved through a process of substitution.
In the case of Guanyin, while her origins are rooted in the male bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara, her extensive process of Sinicization involved a fundamental transformation into a female deity, epitomized by the popular legend of Princess Miao Shan. As scholars like Li (Li 2008) have extensively documented, this transformation was so thorough that the original male prototype was almost entirely superseded in popular Chinese worship. Similarly, while ‘Mazu’ worship also undergoes significant localization as it spreads internationally, her image and practices adapting to various cultural contexts (Zhang et al. 2024), the fundamental nature of her core symbolism as a maritime protector typically shows greater stability. The deification of these goddesses typically involves a process where their perfected divine personas supersede their human origins, leading to a relatively smooth and universal appeal that rarely incites deep-seated historical antagonism.
The trajectory of Guan Di worship, however, is far more complex, and its universalization is not without limits or contestation. The boundaries of his ‘Interpretive Malleability’ are vividly illustrated by cases of both active exclusion from without and principled resistance from within.
A telling example of external exclusion is the town of ‘Lücheng’ (呂城) in China. This animosity is vividly reflected in local lore, as documented in the ‘Zhiyi’ (摭遺) section of the Guangxu Danyang county annals (光緒丹陽縣誌).15 During the Qing dynasty, a period of nationwide proliferation of Guan Di temples, Lücheng famously refused to build one. For its residents, their local hero is Lü Meng (呂蒙), the general who defeated and executed Guan Yu. For these inhabitants, and for others who claim descent from ‘Yan Liang’ (顏良), another general slain by Guan Yu, Guan Di is not a universal protector but the historical enemy of their ancestors and local patron. This ‘active exclusion based on historical grievances’ demonstrates how local history and pre-existing belief networks can erect firm boundaries against even the most powerful of symbols. Simultaneously, a case of internal resistance is found in the stele inscription titled ‘Record of the Reconstruction of the Temple of Marquis Guan’ (重修關侯廟碑記) from Luoning, Henan, dated to the Qianlong reign. The author expresses profound dissatisfaction with the contemporary trend of elevating Guan Yu from a marquis (侯) to an emperor (帝). He critiques this as an act of impropriety that ‘improperly elevates a subordinate (Guan Yu) to the same level as his sovereign, Emperor Zhaolie, and his heir.’ (使侯上擬於昭烈父子) and dismisses popular legends about Guan Di’s divine status as ‘superstitious tales of ghosts and marvels.’ (說鬼而言怪) (Wang 2016). This ‘active resistance from within’, rooted in orthodox Confucian ritual principles, is a powerful testament to the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype’. The author’s insistence on the title ‘Marquis Guan’ shows that the historical, human identity of Guan Yu as a loyal subject was so tenacious that it resisted even imperial attempts at full deification.
Taken together, these two cases of contestation, one from rival communities and one from a Confucian purist, underscore the profound paradoxes of Guan Di’s worship. They highlight a crucial distinction from the cults of Guanyin and Mazu, whose narratives seldom generate such irreconcilable historical conflicts. The very existence of such exceptions reveals the unique, often contested, nature of Guan Di’s ‘Interpretive Malleability’, a quality defined as much by its tensions and boundaries as by its flexibility.
The exceptional malleability of Guan Di is fueled by unique structural properties within his symbolic system, beginning with his very origins. The Guan Di symbol itself carries rich, even contradictory, meanings. This polysemy provides the foundation for different groups to selectively interpret based on their needs. As some scholars suggest, Guan Di’s worship may stem from early fierce ghost (祀厲) propitiation, notably linked to post-mortem plagues in Jingzhou (荊州), reflecting a hungry ghost belief (血食崇拜) aimed at averting disaster rather than seeking blessings (Zheng 1994; Xu 1999). While this early form of worship has been almost entirely superseded by his later, more benevolent personas, its historical trace contributes to the vast spectrum of his symbolic identity. This identity can be conceptualized as a spectrum bookended by two opposing poles: at one end lies this historical layer of a feared, demonic entity, and at the other stands the revered imperial sage-emperor, a perfected figure shaped by centuries of Confucian, Buddhist, and Daoist interventions. The immense tension between these two poles—the demonic and the divine—creates an unparalleled interpretive field. Crucially, it is the historical personage of ‘Guan Yu’ that occupies the vast and fertile middle ground of this spectrum. He is neither purely a ghost to be feared nor a perfect god to be worshipped from a distance. Instead, as a figure marked by both celebrated virtues and tragic flaws, he serves as the stable, relatable median in this symbolic continuum.
This unique structure is what this study terms ‘the persistence of the human prototype’. Guan Di’s deification is ‘additive’, not substitutive, because the human prototype ‘Guan Yu’ is never erased; it persists as the cognitive anchor and the primary point of access for devotees. This allows for a remarkable flexibility of engagement: believers can move up the spectrum to connect with his divine power, or move down to identify with his human drama and moral complexities. This capacity to navigate between the poles of ghost and deity, with the historical hero as the enduring mediator, is a distinctive mechanism that furnishes his cult with a uniquely broad and resilient foundation for creative reinterpretation.
This concept of a ‘human prototype’ finds compelling ethnographic expression in the religious life of rural India, where anthropologist Bhrigupati Singh (2015) reveals a world in which deities are not remote sovereigns but intimate, and often contentious, partners. This dynamic relationship, rooted in the perceived humanity of the sacred, mirrors the very mechanisms that enable a symbol’s malleability. In Singh’s ethnography, where villagers can argue with their gods over sacrificial terms (“Baba…we won’t give a goat…Eat us if you must”), make demands during rituals (“You better do my work!”), and even compel a divine appearance through their own ascetic efforts (“Now he will have to come”) (Singh 2015, pp. 46, 48, 61).16
Crucially, these actions are a vivid embodiment of the ‘Local Generative Process.’ Driven by a ‘Generative Impetus’, such as an existential crisis (rooted in economic hardship and resource scarcity), villagers are not passive recipients of divine will. Instead, they actively employ their own moral reasoning and ritual technologies to activate the negotiable and arguable aspects of the deity’s ‘human prototype,’ thereby shaping the terms of human-divine engagement. This Indian case vividly illustrates the core principle: the potency of a ‘human prototype’ lies not in its perfection but in its capacity for a dynamic, human-like relationship. This same principle is central to understanding the enduring power of Guan Di.
My fieldwork revealed a striking pattern. Whenever I asked devotees and temple committee members why they worship Guan Di, their responses consistently bypassed abstract theology or discussions of his origins as a fierce ghost. Instead, they told me stories. They spoke of the flesh-and-blood ‘Guan Yu’ from Romance of the Three Kingdoms, recounting his deeds and virtues. Their primary point of emotional and psychological connection was clearly with this relatable, albeit extraordinary, historical figure, not with a distant, perfected deity. This lived experience demonstrates that for his followers, Guan Di’s power is rooted in his compelling humanity.
It is precisely this grounding in a relatable human prototype that affords the faith its remarkable structural flexibility, a quality that manifests directly in its ritual practices. The ritual practices of Guan Di worship exhibit rich forms, inheriting traditions while constantly adapting. The Guan Di birthday celebration is the most important annual worship activity (Table 3), usually the time when the cohesion of the temple or related community is strongest. However, the specific date varies among different communities and temples, mainly falling on the 13th day of the 5th lunar month and the 24th day of the 6th lunar month, with the latter being the mainstream. This ‘dual birthday’ phenomenon is not mere historical confusion. The coexistence and general acceptance of these two dates within the Malaysian Chinese community precisely reflect key characteristics of traditional Chinese belief: syncretism, inclusivity, and flexibility (Feuchtwang 2010). As research on the logic of folk religious practices points out, folk beliefs often follow an operational logic different from institutional religions, emphasizing the proper execution of ritual actions and their effects, rather than unified doctrines or historical explanations. Such pragmatism, which prizes ritual efficacy over doctrinal correctness, lies at the utilitarian core of the belief system: as long as the ritual successfully unifies the community and delivers the expected sacred effects, its specific date and form become highly flexible.
The enduring power of this human prototype finds its ultimate expression in the secular realm of popular culture, where his image is continuously reinterpreted through video games and merchandise. Strikingly, these modern forms often present him not as the divine ‘Guan Di’ but as the historical ‘Guan Yu’. This ‘return’ to his human persona is distinct from other deities like Mazu or the Monkey King (孫悟空), whose popular representations typically rely on their divine myths. Guan Yu’s appeal, in contrast, stems from his rich human drama, allowing for a secular engagement that makes him accessible to a global, non-devotee audience. This demonstrates the ultimate form of his malleability: the capacity to strip away the divine and re-engage with the potent human narrative at his core.
Therefore, ‘Interpretive Malleability,’ as delineated in this section, is not intended to supplant the important theoretical contributions of previous scholarship. Rather, it builds upon them by opening the ‘black box’ of the symbol itself. Through a multi-layered comparative framework, this study has systematically demonstrated that Guan Di’s malleability is exceptional in both nature and degree. This study has argued that its engine is ‘the persistence of the human prototype’—a unique cognitive structure creating a vast psychological space for identification. However, a symbol’s potential is only actualized when it meets the specific demands of a community in a particular place and time. Therefore, this study now pivots from the symbolic structure to the social ground. The following analysis of the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia will explore the spatial logic and social practices through which this malleability was put into action, shaping the contemporary religious landscape.

4. Spatial Logic and Social Practice: A GIS-Grounded Ethnography of the West Coast

At first glance, a Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis of Guan Di worship on the West Coast reveals a predictable, almost universal pattern for a diasporic faith: its distribution follows the currents of migration, concentrates around nodes of economic activity, and aligns with the development of natural resources and infrastructure. The clustering of temples in historic ports, tin-rich hinterlands, and along modern transportation arteries confirms that, at a macro level, the faith’s spatial logic mirrors that of many other deities, tracking the footsteps of its community.
However, it is precisely this seeming ordinariness that makes the GIS analysis a powerful and indispensable tool for this study. Rather than using it to prove the uniqueness of Guan Di’s distribution, this section employs GIS to establish a common ground—a cartographic baseline of settlement and economic history.
This section, therefore, employs the macro-meso-micro framework inspired by settlement geography to move from spatial patterns to social practices. Specifically, this section will investigate how two key networks—those led by Hakka miners and those by Hokkien merchants and their associated mediums (乩童)—activated different facets of Guan Di’s symbolism within these shared geographic zones. By examining the calculated inclusion of Guan Di in Hakka-led Sin Sze Si Ya temples as a potential form of ‘simulated kinship’, and by tracing the economic–ritual expansion of Hokkien fenxiang networks, this analysis aims to demonstrate how divergent social needs and practices can create distinct ‘maps of meaning’ upon a common geographical canvas.

4.1. The Common Ground: Spatial Logic of a Diasporic Faith

The spatial distribution of Guan Di worship sites reveals a clear and deliberate logic, rather than a random scattering. Quantitative analysis confirms a significant geographical imbalance. The calculated Gini coefficient of 0.5289 indicates a high degree of spatial concentration, moving significantly beyond a moderate imbalance and pointing towards a structured, non-arbitrary pattern. This is further visualized by the Lorenz Curve (Figure 9a), which starkly illustrates this disparity: the curve’s deep bow away from the line of perfect equality demonstrates that a small number of states command a disproportionately large share of these cultural landmarks. Specifically, the data shows that the top three states, Selangor, Penang, and Perak, which constitute only 25% of the regions studied (3 out of 12), collectively host approximately 53% of all documented worship sites (47 out of 89). This concentration is not merely a statistical curiosity; it is a geographical fingerprint of Malaysian history and socio-economic development. The high Gini coefficient and the skewed Lorenz Curve are more than just metrics of spatial inequality. They are quantitative expressions of a socio-historical narrative. The clustering of Guan Di worship sites is a map of the Chinese diaspora’s journey in Malaysia, charting its initial points of arrival, its economic endeavors, and its enduring community strongholds. The pattern is ‘deliberate’, not by a central plan, but as the cumulative result of generations of community-building in specific, historically significant locations.
The Nearest Neighbor Index (NNI) confirms this pattern: a resulting R-value of 0.474582 and a Z-score of −9.482673 indicate that the distribution is statistically significantly clustered (p < 0.01), decisively rejecting the null hypothesis of a random pattern. The NNI results (Figure 9b) provide powerful, conclusive evidence that the spatial pattern of Guan Di worship sites is not random but is, in fact, highly clustered. This confirmed clustering provides the foundation for a deeper analysis of the field’s internal structure and evolution. This study conceptualizes the distribution of Guan Di worship not as a mere collection of sites, but as a dynamic ‘field of faith’ embedded within the specific geographical matrix of Peninsular Malaysia. To dissect this spatial logic, this section uses KDE, visualized in Figure 10a and Figure 11a, and SDE analysis (Figure 10b and Figure 11b), to dissect spatial patterns across two periods: 1800–1957 and 1958–2025. This chronological division is deliberate, with the year 1957 marking the independence of Malaya, a pivotal moment that initiated profound shifts in the nation’s political, economic, and social landscape.
The geography of the West Coast is characterized by a narrow coastal plain flanked by the Titiwangsa Mountains (Main Range). This topography decisively shaped the initial settlement patterns. During the colonial era (1800–1957), the spatial pattern of Guan Di worship was dictated by a port-hinterland economic structure. Early Chinese immigrants established communities along the coast and major river mouths (Kinta rivers) for agriculture and trade, while the discovery of tin pulled them inland towards the foothills of the mountain range. The KDE analysis (Figure 10a) confirms this geographical logic, revealing high-density clusters in the port cities of Penang and Malacca and the tin-rich Kuala Lumpur. This spatial pattern reflects the dominant economic models of the era: maritime port trade and inland resource extraction. Guan Di’s ‘interpretive malleability’ was key; his symbolism of ‘righteousness’ fostered cohesion in the ports, while his ‘martial attributes’ offered spiritual security in the often-turbulent mining frontiers.
In the post-independence era (1958–2025), a fundamental spatial recalibration occurred, mirroring Malaysia’s own economic transformation. The KDE map (Figure 11a) shows a decisive southward shift in worship hotspots toward the new economic powerhouses of Selangor and Johor. This was a direct response to the transition towards an urban industrial and service economy. The construction of the North–South Expressway, acting as the nation’s infrastructural spine, was a critical variable that reshaped the West Coast’s spatial dynamics. It facilitated the consolidation and integration of worship sites along this new economic artery, rather than being scattered. This interpretation is quantitatively supported by Table 2, which shows a peak in temple foundations (47.2% of the total) during this period of accelerated urbanization.
The SDE analysis quantifies this strategic geographical adjustment. A comparison of Figure 10b and Figure 11b shows the distribution’s center shifting southeast by approximately 66.14 km, a vector tracking the nation’s developmental axis. The ellipse’s area contracted (from about 60,291 km2 to 49,289 km2), reflecting a consolidation from scattered frontier settlements to an integrated network. This contraction suggests that as immigrant society matured and economic activities became more established, the faith’s primary spheres of influence shifted to more stable community centers. Concurrently, the ellipse’s orientation re-aligned with the dominant north–south geography. These metrics illustrate how the Guan Di belief system, activated by local actors, adapted its spatial presence in remarkable congruence with the evolving geographical and economic logic of modern Malaysia.The establishment of these permanent physical nodes created the stable, high-density hotspots identified by the KDE analysis and directly contributed to the spatial consolidation observed in the SDE analysis, making the faith’s distribution more defined and centralized. Therefore, this institutionalization was not merely a social development; it was a fundamental spatial practice.

4.2. Divergent Paths on West Coast: Hakka and Hokkien Adaptations

With the macro-spatial baseline established, the analysis now shifts to the micro level of social practice to reveal how ‘interpretive malleability’ was activated in divergent ways by different communities within these same geographical zones. The geographic proximity dictated by the West Coast’s economic landscape created a unique social dynamic. It forced communities that might have been segregated or even hostile in their homelands into a state of sustained interaction, a condition that not only generated conflict but also created the necessary grounds for eventual negotiation and understanding.
This trajectory from proximity-induced conflict to a form of emergent solidarity lies at the heart of the Malaysian Chinese diasporic narrative. It is precisely within this dynamic field of tension and accommodation that a figure like Guan Di, at once universally revered and highly malleable, became a crucial symbolic resource. His adaptable persona allowed disparate groups, each starting from their own unique social and historical positions, to ultimately converge towards a shared future, demonstrating a process of ‘arriving at the same destination by different paths’ (殊途同歸).

4.2.1. Economic–Ritual Networks: The Hokkien Case

Tracing the early dissemination and initial institutionalization of Guan Di worship on Peninsular Malaysia’s west coast leads us to the 19th and early 20th centuries. During this era, a massive wave of Chinese migration to Southeast Asia occurred, driven by survival pressures in mainland China and opportunities arising from colonial economic expansion in the region (Yen 1986, pp. 35–140). This period also witnessed the transition of Guan Di worship from the spiritual solace of individual immigrants into shared community ritual practices.
Many early Chinese immigrants, whether merchants, labourers, or others seeking a livelihood, also brought Guan Di worship to the Peninsular Malaysia’s west coast by carrying personal amulets. For example, Fu Boshi (傅伯石) from Anxi (安溪市), Fujian province (福建), brought a Guan Di statue about 30 cm high to Singapore’s Rambutan Ge Village (紅毛丹格) around 1910. Immigrants who moved from Bashe (八社), Anxi, to Pekan Nenas, Johor, carried with them ‘Guan Di incense ash pouches’ (關帝香火袋) inscribed with ‘Shanxi Fuzi’. Tracing earlier material evidence, fieldwork discovered a Guan Di incense burner dating back over six hundred years preserved in the Shui Yue Gong temple in Pulai, Kelantan, which might be considered one of the earliest physical proofs of Guan Di worship entering the region. Initially, this belief often manifested as highly individualized and private practices (family worship). Like Fu Boshi, who enshrined the Guan Di statue at home, immigrants in Peninsular Malaysia also hung these incense ash pouches, carrying the sacred power of their homeland, in their living rooms, setting up simple altars in homes, shops, or personal dwellings. This was not only to seek Guan Di’s protection in an unfamiliar environment, praying for safety, health, and business prosperity, fulfilling the basic needs for security and psychological comfort during the turbulent migration process, but also a way to transplant and maintain cultural capital in their homeland.
Following these initial, often individual or family-based modes of belief transplantation, ‘Fenxiang’ and ‘Fenling’ (分靈, dividing the spirit) emerged as crucial and more formalized mechanisms for establishing and validating Guan Di worship within nascent immigrant communities. This study’s fieldwork on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia primarily investigated Guan Di temples with clear fenxiang connections to the Southern Fujian (閩南) region, particularly areas like Quanzhou and Anxi.17 For example, the division of incense in the Jenjarom Tung Loh Temple (仁嘉隆銅鑼祖廟) was brought from the Ba She Tong Luo Temple in Hushan Township (安溪湖上鄉八社銅鑼廟), Anxi, by a disciple named Chen Bing (陳炳) in 1910, initially enshrined in a small hut on a gravel road. The spiritual connection of the Johor Tampoi Guan Di Miao originated in the 1920s when Soo Hng Hok (蘇遠福), an Anxi native, brought it from the Qi Zhai Temple in Hutou Town (安溪湖頭鎮七寨廟), his hometown, initially placing it in his own house. By Fenxiang from ancestral temples in their homeland or from earlier temples established locally, immigrants not only maintained cultural ties with their ancestral land in emotional and symbolic terms but, more importantly, this practice established a sacred genealogy.
It ‘replicated’ and ‘transplanted’ Guan Di’s sacredness to new locations, providing theological legitimacy for the establishment of new worship spaces, and gradually weaving an early transnational religious network across the west coast. The division of incense from Gombak’s Ju Xian Miao to Old Klang Road’s Zhen Nan Temple further illustrates the network’s growth within Malaysia itself (Figure 12, Table 4). It is noteworthy that Guan Di’s protective function was often extended in practice to cope with specific existential crises, especially in early immigrant society, lacking medical resources, where his divine power was interpreted by devotees as having healing potential. For instance, the origins of both the Jenjarom Tung Loh Temple in Selangor and the Sin Ann Meow in Cheras are related to immigrants carrying incense ash seeking Guan Di’s protection to overcome difficulties, including health issues. The successful founding and persistence of these new temples in areas like Selangor and Cheras are precisely what contributed to the formation of the new southern hotspots identified in the later period’s KDE map (Figure 11a).
Horizontal connections between branch temples are also vital. Temples originating from the same ancestral temple, or those geographically close with overlapping devotee communities, often form ties through mutual visits, fellowship, and joint dharma assemblies. A clear example of this is the layered fenxiang process: through interviews and participant observation, it was learned that the incense from the Anxi Ju Xing Lou Guan Di Temple was brought to the Gombak Ju Xian Miao, which later further divided its incense to the Old Klang Road Zhen Nan Temple. This creates a regional chain of belief dissemination and an inter-temple interaction network, consolidating regional belief communities. Furthermore, these networks can extend to interactions with other deity cults, as seen in the close relationship between the Gombak Ju Xian Miao, the Old Klang Road Zhen Nan Temple, and the Selangor Ampang Nan Tian Gong Kau Ong Yah Temple (安邦九皇爺南天宮, Figure 13). The committee members of these temples have significant overlap, and Guan Di statues are even ‘invited’ to ‘assist’ during the Nine Emperor Gods festival celebrations, acting as ceremonial guards. This illustrates not only inter-temple collaboration but also the role of local elite networks in maintaining diverse belief practices.
Secondly, the mobility of religious specialists, such as spirit mediums and Daoist priests, is another important factor. These specialists often serve multiple temples, connecting different belief nodes and promoting the exchange of ritual knowledge and practices. Taking Mr. Pang as an example, he not only holds positions in several temples but also, as early as 2000, traveled with Ms. Wen, the secretary of the Tampoi Guan Di Temple, to the ancestral Guan Di Temple in Haizhou (解州關帝廟), Yuncheng, Shanxi, China (Figure 14), for pilgrimage, and brought back incense ashes from the ancestral temple to be enshrined at Swee Foh Wan Tay. Another example is Mr. Wong, the general affairs manager of Ulu Hock Sui Tong in Kepong, who also provides divination services for devotees at the Gombak Ju Xian Miao.18 These ‘mobile nodes’ transmit information, share resources, and coordinate activities among different faith communities, playing an irreplaceable role in maintaining and expanding belief networks.

4.2.2. Simulated Kinship in the Mining Frontier: The Hakka Case

The fenxiang networks, tracing their origins to ancestral temples in Southern Fujian, established a sacred genealogy that legitimized new temples on the West Coast, creating a web of spiritual and economic interconnectedness. For these communities, Guan Di was often interpreted as a protector of commerce and a bestower of wealth. The role of mediums, who could channel the deity to provide specific advice for business or personal matters, became central. This adaptation highlights a more transactional and pragmatic engagement with the deity, where his ‘human prototype’ was accessed not just for his moral virtues but for his perceived efficacy and wisdom in navigating the complexities of the marketplace.
In essence, the practice of fenxiang acted as the engine for the spatial evolution of Guan Di worship. It translated individual belief into a structured, interconnected network, anchored new worship sites in developing regions, and provided the functional adaptability for the faith to thrive. The macro-patterns of consolidation and shifting hotspots observed via GIS are the cumulative, visible outcomes of these countless, localized ritual actions.
In the tumultuous social landscape of 19th-century Malayan tin mining frontiers, a domain predominantly shaped by Hakka immigrants and characterized by a severe gender imbalance, creating a largely male-dominated society, the figure of Guan Di was strategically activated. The worship patterns surrounding Sin Sze Si Ya, the deified Hakka Kapitan (甲必丹) Yap Ah Loy, who led the Hai San, provide the most vivid evidence of this strategy. While the previous chapter discussed the strategic use of Guan Di’s symbolism in frontier societies, this section provides quantitative and geographical evidence for this phenomenon by examining the relationship between Guan Di and the Hakka patron Sin Sze Si Ya.
An investigation of fifteen primary Sin Sze Si Ya temples reveals a stark pattern: thirteen also enshrine Guan Di. This geographical correlation is not random; twelve of these thirteen temples are situated squarely within the historical tin-mining belt of Selangor, Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Sembilan, and Pahang (Table A2). This calculated inclusion of the pan-Chinese hero Guan Di alongside a specific dialect-group patron was clearly a strategic act of symbolic coalition-building. The exceptions reinforce this conclusion: the two Sin Sze Si Ya temples lacking Guan Di are located outside this primary mining belt (Malacca and Johor). The relationship is also demonstrably one-directional, as temples dedicated to Guan Di rarely enshrine Sin Sze Si Ya. A notable exception, the Lieh Sheng Gong in Seremban, itself located in the tin belt, further underscores that this fusion was a specific adaptation to the frontier’s socio-economic conditions. It was here that the ‘persistence of the human prototype’ was activated, casting Guan Yu as the supreme patron for a simulated kinship network where expansive, ritualized brotherhood was paramount.
Additionally, when examining the complexity of the relationship between societies on the West Coast and Guan Di, a phenomenon worth further exploration emerges: the asymmetrical worship relationship between Guan Di belief and a specific local deity—Sin Sze Si Ya. Current investigations for this study reveal that among the identified Guan Di worship sites, only the Lieh Sheng Gong, established in 1876 in Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, also enshrines Sin Sze Si Ya. Conversely, out of fifteen temples in Malaysia primarily dedicated to Sin Sze Si Ya, only two do not also feature Guan Di as a venerated deity. This asymmetry might reflect the complex power structures and symbolic strategies within 19th-century West Coast Chinese society. Sin Sze Si Ya worship is closely linked to Yap Ah Loy, the pioneering founder of Kuala Lumpur, and the Hai San Society he led.
This study speculates that:
Borrowing Authority and Integrating Resources: Given Guan Di’s widespread recognition across regions and dialect groups and his symbolic power universally employed by various factions in society conflicts, incorporating Guan Di into Sin Sze Si Ya temples associated with the Hai San Society helped borrow his authority to enhance their own legitimacy and integrate this powerful symbolic resource to consolidate power.
Reasons for Fewer Sin Sze Si Ya Shrines in Guan Di Temples: In contrast, Sin Sze Si Ya’s symbolic meaning was highly localized and factionalized. For Guan Di temples serving broader communities or wishing to avoid involvement in specific factional disputes, incorporating Sin Sze Si Ya might lack necessity and could even cause identity confusion.
This calculated asymmetry in worship, as previously described, underscores a sophisticated dual-track strategy employed by these societies in building their belief systems: local deities like Sin Sze Si Ya fostered internal cohesion and historical continuity, while the trans-factional appeal of Guan Di served to attract a wider membership, project an image of righteousness, and manage interactions within a shared cultural landscape.
In summary, the Hakka and Hokkien case studies powerfully demonstrate the core thesis of this section. On the same geographical and economic stage established by the GIS analysis, two distinct ‘maps of meaning’ were drawn. These divergent adaptations, while unique, both contributed to a broader, fundamental process: the institutional anchoring of the faith, which marks its critical transition from private devotion to the public sphere. As Chinese immigrant settlements stabilized in the 19th century, the ‘Interpretive Malleability’ of Guan Di was activated to serve this new, communal purpose. His core values of ‘loyalty and righteousness’ provided a powerful spiritual template for organizing nascent communities that transcended kinship and dialect lines. This process of institutionalization directly explains the macro-spatial patterns observed in Section 4.1. The establishment of formal worship spaces within public associations, such as the Malacca’s Fui Chew Association (1805) and Penang’s Kar Yin Fee Kon (1801), transformed Guan Di from a portable, personal amulet into a fixed, communal patron.
A particularly prominent example is the Penang Chinese Town Hall, which was founded in 1881 and, upon the completion of its building in 1886, established a shrine to Guan Di for merchants from the Fujian and Guangdong provinces. This site gained significant prestige when, in 1894, following fundraising efforts by the Penang Chinese community for drought relief in Shanxi, the influential Qing official Li Hongzhang (李鴻章) successfully petitioned the Guangxu Emperor on their behalf. The petition highlighted a deliberate strategy: instead of seeking personal rewards, the community intentionally attributed their meritorious work to Guan Di, requesting an imperial plaque to honor the deity. The Emperor approved, ordering a plaque to be prepared and delivered via Li Hongzhang to community leaders like Zheng Siwen (鄭嗣文), along with a commendation. This act was profoundly significant, as it conferred official recognition from the imperial court, merging Guan Di’s symbolism with state-sanctioned rituals despite its frequent links to Southeast Asian secret societies. Following the major suppression of Chinese secret societies by the British colonial government in the late 19th century, this endorsement also created a legitimate platform to openly promote Confucian values like loyalty and righteousness.19
The localization of Guan Di worship is not a passive process of acceptance; instead, the process is revealed to be far more complex and dynamic: it is the result of active selection, interpretation, and shaping by distinct communities responding to their unique historical and socio-economic needs. The divergent paths of the Hakka and Hokkien communities are a testament to this community agency. The Hakka, needing to forge social cohesion in the dangerous mining frontiers, activated Guan Di’s martial and fraternal aspects to create a model of simulated kinship. The Hokkien, operating within commercial networks, mobilized his symbolism of integrity and efficacy to build transnational trust. The ability for Guan Di to simultaneously serve these diverse, context-specific roles is key to understanding his enduring prevalence.

4.3. Creativity in Iconography and Function

If the image of Guan Gong on a rescue vehicle represents a bold expansion of his symbolism into the secular sphere, a more subtle yet profound creative reshaping occurs within the sacred space of the temple. This reshaping, often achieved by challenging established iconographic norms and expanding the deity’s functions, powerfully demonstrates the agency of local communities in their religious practices.
Local creativity is first evident in deviations from standard iconography. For instance, an early statue of Guan Di worshipped in the Malacca Lui Chiew Huay Kuan holds a fan in its left hand, rather than the traditional blade or the act of stroking his beard (Figure 15). In the traditional symbolic system, a fan is typically associated with scholars, strategists, or graceful officials, not a purely martial figure. This variation is likely a collective re-interpretation of Guan Di’s image by this specific community, based on their own history, values, or particular needs. A more profound example is the ‘smiling Guan Di’ (Figure 16) enshrined in the Kuan Tay Temple in Batu Gajah, Perak, with a history of about 130 years. The amiable smile of this statue completely subverts the standard paradigm of Guan Di’s solemnity and martial prowess, shifting the deity’s emotional tenor from ‘majesty’ to ‘affinity.’ This bold reshaping reflects a highly personalized interpretation by the local community or artisan, who chose to amplify the deity’s benevolent and approachable aspects to meet the spiritual and emotional needs of local devotees. This transformation is possible precisely because the object of worship remains anchored to a knowable, complex ‘human prototype,’ which provides the space for reshaping his emotional attributes.
Local creativity extends beyond altering visual features to fundamentally expanding Guan Di’s divine functions through ‘functional syncretism’. The statue of ‘Guan Di Wen Chang’ (Figure 17) in Kuala Lumpur’s Sin Sze Si Ya Temple is a prime example. Here, Guan Di is not merely himself; he is creatively fused into a composite deity with Wen Chang Di Jun (文昌帝君), the god of literature and examinations.
This fusion is also deeply reflected in ritual practice: devotees specifically choose to worship this composite deity on Wenchang Dijun’s birthday (the 3rd day of the 2nd lunar month), rather than on Guan Di’s birthday. This choice precisely reveals the pragmatic purpose of the fusion: to graft Guan Di’s symbolism of ‘wisdom and courage’ onto the devotees’ core desire for academic success. For devotees seeking success in modern society, this ‘fusion of the civil and the martial’ is clearly more potent than a single-function deity. Consequently, his symbolism of ‘justice’ and ‘Di’ was drawn upon to adjudicate internal affairs, a practice historically evident in institutions such as two historic landmarks: the KL Kwong Siew Association (雪隆廣肇會館), which dates back to 1888, and Malacca’s Cheng Hoon Teng Temple (青雲亭), one of the oldest Chinese temples in Malaysia, constructed in 1673.
However, this functional extensibility has its limits. In some newly established Guan Di temples, particularly those where devotion is closely linked to personal experiences of efficacy, such as the Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong and Ulu Tiram Swee Foh Wan Tay, a notable phenomenon is the incorporation of deities associated with the City God (城隍) system, especially Da Er Ye Bo (大二爺伯 also known as黑白無常) (Figure 18). Interviews reveal a pragmatic calculus among devotees: while maintaining reverence for Guan Di, individuals facing urgent crises or seeking specific types of intervention may turn to these deities, who are perceived as being more ‘efficacious’ or ‘faster in handling matters’ for particular problems. This functional differentiation, based on practical logic, clearly demonstrates how devotees actively configure and invoke different sacred resources. It also implies that while ‘Interpretive Malleability’ provides considerable space for faith practices, strong utilitarian demands can reveal its inherent complexities and even impose limitations on its role.
In the contemporary era, this locally rooted ritual adaptability, facilitated by modern transport and communication, has expanded to the construction of transnational networks. The ‘MIGCF’, established in 2015, and its associated formal organizations. Through large-scale parades and cross-border exchanges, these activities promote a more universal, modern Guan Gong narrative, effectively building a transnational communication platform. However, this trend introduces a critical tension: the emphasis on unified images and grand celebrations risks homogenizing diverse local practices, posing a challenge to maintaining local diversity amidst demands for broader cultural integration.
Parallel to this top-down organizational push, a more decentralized form of adaptation is occurring through new media and cross-cultural encounters, to attract the younger generation and broader social groups, some temples and cultural organizations have begun to integrate Guan Di’s image and stories into cultural and creative products. In addition, Online platforms, including social media and video-sharing sites, now play a crucial role in introducing Chinese folk beliefs to a wider audience, documenting rituals, and fostering virtual communities. For instance, according to the YouTube channel ‘Pray For?’ (問神), in 2019, at the Xie Tian Gong in Taman Sentosa, Klang, during the celebration of Guan Di’s birthday on the twenty-fourth day of the sixth lunar month, an Indian devotee, Mr. Avindiran, came to have an incense burner consecrated. It is reported that this individual had maintained an altar and worshipped Guan Di at his home for many years, and on this occasion, he also brought his child to be formally accepted as Guan Di’s godchild.22
The cases examined above collectively reveal the core engine of Guan Di’s profound resilience. Local communities function not as passive recipients of tradition, but as active agents who continuously re-engineer their deity. Harnessing the ‘Interpretive Malleability’ inherent in the Guan Di symbol, they strategically reshape his affective attributes, graft new functionalities onto his persona, and negotiate his position within a dynamic sacred ecosystem. And the very same mechanisms are operative today, allowing his image to be emblazoned on a rescue vehicle or to serve as the centerpiece of a transnational cultural festival. This enduring capacity for re-creation, rooted in the ‘Persistence of the Human Prototype’ and actualized by local agency, ensures that Guan Di worship is no mere historical relic, but a living tradition that continues to shape and be shaped by the world around it.

5. Discussions and Conclusions

This study argues that the remarkable resilience of Guan Di worship in Peninsular Malaysia is driven by a core mechanism: ‘Interpretive Malleability’. This exceptional adaptability stems from a dynamic, two-part mechanism, the first part being the symbol’s ‘Inherent Potential,’ which is deeply rooted in the enduring vitality of its ‘Human Prototype.’
To clarify the unique nature of Guan Di’s human prototype, this study places him on a comparative spectrum of religious figures. At one end of the spectrum are ‘Canonized Prototypes’ like Jesus Christ and the Prophet Muhammad. Although they possess powerful human prototypes, the institutional structures surrounding them serve to contain interpretive potential through canonization, thereby ensuring doctrinal stability.23 Conversely, where such singular institutional strictures are absent or pluralistic, the influence of the human prototype becomes determinative. This dynamic is powerfully illustrated by the figure of Maitreya Buddha in China. His dominant representation is not that of a majestic Bodhisattva but of the jovial, pot-bellied ‘monk Budai’ (布袋和尚), a quasi-historical figure from Volume 21 of the ‘Song Biographies of Eminent Monks’ (宋高僧傳). In this process of deification, the perfected, sacred identity of Maitreya did not erase the specific, relatable human characteristics of Budai. Instead, the human prototype of the laughing, carefree monk with a large belly came to define the dominant representation of Maitreya in East Asian popular culture. At the spectrum’s opposite pole are the highly humanized deities described by Singh in rural India, who become so thoroughly integrated into daily life that they function as intimate, contentious partners with whom devotees can argue, cajole, and negotiate.
Guan Di’s prototype occupies a unique and powerful middle ground, forged not by a singular, definitive canonization, but by the continuous dialectic between competing institutional forces. This process created a dynamic balance between divine transcendence and human relatability, ensuring that his human persona constantly animates his divine status, while his divinity simultaneously elevates and formalizes his human narrative. This very dynamic is vividly mirrored in the Malaysian context, as observed in the ‘Church of Virtue’, where Guan Di is revered as the central figure harmonizing the Five Teachings. Such a syncretic role, which would be theologically inconceivable for figures like Jesus or Muhammad, underscores the exceptional interpretive elasticity that his unique symbolic structure affords.
Such potential, however, remains latent until it is activated by the second part of the mechanism: the ‘Local Generative Process’. Catalyzed by a ‘Generative Impetus’, the urgent needs of diasporic communities, local actors employed distinct ‘Generative Mechanisms’ to re-purpose the symbol. The spatial patterns revealed by GIS, therefore, are not merely maps of settlement, but a cartography of this creative process in action.
By pursuing a dual comparative approach, examining the diachronic evolution of Guan Di’s own personas and analyzing the synchronic differences with other deities like Mazu and Datuk Gong, this study pinpoints the exceptional uniqueness of his cult. This highlights a dynamic interplay where human creativity and symbolic potential co-produce religious resilience. However, this malleability is not without its limits. The same universal appeal that made Guan Di a pan-Chinese symbol also rendered him unsuitable for the hyper-exclusive conflicts in his homeland, where fiercely local patrons were required. This demonstrates that interpretive malleability operates within, and is constrained by, concrete political-economic structures and social logics.
This study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, the analysis primarily focused on temples where Guan Di is the main deity. A more comprehensive survey including sites where he is an ancillary deity would likely reveal an even more impactful and pervasive presence, further strengthening the core argument. Secondly, major political-spatial interventions, such as the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960) and the establishment of ‘Chinese New Villages’ (華人新村), were not fully incorporated. Future research could apply the ‘Interpretive Malleability’ framework to examine how such state-directed reorganizations acted as a powerful new ‘generative impetus’. Lastly, the geographical focus on Peninsular Malaysia’s West Coast restricts a broader comparative perspective. Future inquiry could test the framework’s applicability across diverse socio-cultural settings and investigate how digital media is now reshaping this malleability.
Finally, this study suggests a critical reflection on the inherent dialectic of such profound adaptability. While ‘Interpretive Malleability’ is a mechanism of cultural resilience, it may also contain the seeds of its own negation. A symbol that can be effectively mobilized by opposing social forces, such as state authorities and subversive groups or competing commercial and political factions, demonstrates immense functional power. However, this very universality risks diluting the symbol’s core semantic and moral coherence. The ultimate paradox of extreme malleability is that the symbol’s capacity to signify almost anything could diminish its ability to mean something definite. This inherent tension between functional adaptability and the potential for semantic erosion represents a profound, yet perhaps necessary, cost of the very creativity that ensures a tradition’s enduring vitality.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.L., S.K.O. and D.T.K.W.; methodology, X.L.; software, X.L.; validation, X.L., S.K.O. and D.T.K.W.; formal analysis, X.L.; investigation, X.L.; resources, S.K.O. and D.T.K.W.; data curation, X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, X.L., S.K.O. and D.T.K.W.; visualization, X.L.; supervision, S.K.O. and D.T.K.W.; project administration, S.K.O. and D.T.K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Universiti Malaya Research Ethics Committee (Non-Medical) (Reference No. UM.TNC2/UMREC_4053).

Informed Consent Statement

All interviews were conducted with informed consent, and sensitive information has been anonymized.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available as the research is ongoing, but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. We also wish to acknowledge the support of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Department of Chinese Studies at Universiti Malaya. Special thanks are extended to the Academic Editor, Christopher Humphrey Hartney, for his valuable guidance. This study also benefited from discussions at the Second ‘Guan Gong Culture Forum·Youth Forum’ held in Quanzhou in June 2025. Finally, we extend our heartfelt thanks to all the interviewees who supported our fieldwork, with special gratitude to Ling Hui Wen for her generous assistance. Our gratitude also goes to Kui Li, Fusheng Hong, and Huizhi Miao for their invaluable help with this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Identified Guan Di Worship Spaces & Time Distribution (Total Identified: 89).
Table A1. Identified Guan Di Worship Spaces & Time Distribution (Total Identified: 89).
StateNameYearType
JohorJohor Baru Kwong Siew Wai Kuan (新山廣肇會館)1878Association
Johor Tampoi Guan Di Miao (柔佛新山淡杯關帝廟)1920Temple
Johor Batu Pahat Xie Tian Gong (柔佛峇株巴轄協天宮)1956Temple
Ulu Tiram Swee Foh Wan Tay (睡佛壇)1976Temple
Johor Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong (柔佛新山淡杯第一花園關聖壇)1983Temple
Kun Seng Keng Lion And Dragon Dance Association (關聖宮龍獅團)1988Association
Skudai University Guan Ti Temple (大學城關帝古廟)1996Temple
Kulai Guan Di Ting (古來關帝亭)2011Temple
Guan De Gong (關德宮)2012Temple
Persatuan Kebudayaan Guan Gong Malaysia
(馬來西亞關公文化推廣中心)		2015Organisation
Malaysia Guan Lao Ye Cultural Association (馬來西亞關老爺文化協會)2015Organisation
MalaccaFui Chui Association (惠州會館)1805Association
Char Yong Fui Kuan (茶陽會館)1807Association
Gi Ho Hoey Guan Teh Beo Temple (馬六甲義和會關帝廟)1893Temple
Lui Chiew Huay Kuan (雷州會館)1898Association
BAN LI KONG (萬靈宮)1951Temple
Malacca Wu Seng Temple (五聖宮)1967Temple
Hiap Long Kong Temple (馬六甲武吉旺協龍宮)1967Temple
Malacca Xi Ling Gong (馬六甲喜靈宮)1981Temple
Malim Xie Tian Gong (瑪琳協天宮)1993Temple
Han Zhong Gong (瑪琳再也漢忠宮)2000Temple
Negeri SembilanSeremban Lieh Sheng Gong (芙蓉譚陽路列聖宮)1876Temple
Tokong Guan Di Sendayan (清宮壇關帝廟)1962Temple
Persatuan Penganut Dewa Guan Di Felda Sendayan (申達央清宮壇關帝廟)1980Temple
Lukut Kuan Ti Temple (波德申蘆骨關帝廟)2004Temple
Seremban Tian Long Gong (芙蓉天龍宮)2012Temple
SelangorJenjarom Tung Loh Temple (仁嘉隆銅鑼廟)1910Temple
Gombak Ju Xian Miao (鵝嘜聚仙廟)1940Temple
Sunway Guan Di Temple (雙威關帝廟)1950Temple
Old Klang Road Zhen Nan Temple (舊巴生路鎮南廟)1950Temple
Selangor & Kuala Lumpur Liu Guan Zhang Zhao Koo Saing Wooi Koon (雪隆劉關張趙古城會)1950Koo Saing Wooi Koon
Selangor Tanjung Karang Hiap Tien Gong (雪蘭莪丹絨加弄協天宮)1960Temple
Sabak Bernam Guan Di Temple (沙白安南河畔關帝廟)1962Temple
Selangor Selayang Baru Tiong Yee Temple (雪蘭莪士拉央峇魯忠義廟)1966Temple
Pulau Ketam Hiap Tian Kiong (吉膽過港區協天宮)1968Temple
Selangor Klang Siah Tian Kong (巴生加埔路二支協天宮)1972Temple
Tanjung Sepat Choong Yee Temple (雪蘭莪丹絨士拔玉封忠義宮)1973Temple
Sekinchan Kuan Ti Temple (適耕莊關帝廟)1973Temple
Banting Chong Yi Temple (萬津忠義廟)1978Temple
Klang Hon Sao Teng Hau Guan Di Temple (巴生中路園漢壽亭侯關帝廟)1979Temple
Kuan Sun Tey (關順宮)1980Temple
Banting Zhong Yi Gong (萬津忠義宮)1983Temple
Sasaran Guan Di Templ (沙沙蘭協天宮)1985Temple
Rawang Guan Di Temple (萬撓關帝廟)1987Temple
Pulau Ketam Chee Sian Tong (吉膽濟仙洞關帝宮)1997Temple
Puchong Han Shou Tang (蒲種漢壽堂)2012Temple
Bandar Sentosa Xie Tian Gong (巴生聖淘沙花園協天宮)2014Temple
Kuala LumpurKuala Lumpur Guandi Temple (茨場街關帝廟)1887Temple
Cheras Batu 11 Sin Ann Meow (蕉賴十一哩星安廟)1940Temple
Ju Xing Tang Guan Di Temple (聚星堂關帝廟)1954Temple
Ulu Hock Sui Tong (甲洞烏魯福壽堂)1955Temple
Kuan Clan Association (關氏公會)1969Clan
Happy Garden Wei Ling Temple (快樂花園威靈廟)1975Temple
Nan Hua Gong Guan Di Temple (甲洞南華宮關帝廟)1987Temple
PerakBatu Gajah KUAN TAY Temple (華都牙也關帝古廟)1892Temple
Temoh Guan Di Temple (地摩關帝古廟)1894Temple
Guan Serng Di Juin Temple (班尖關聖帝君廟)1913Temple
Perak Liu Guan Zhang Zhao Koo Saing Wooi Koon (霹靂劉關張趙古城會)1925Koo Saing Wooi Koon
Perak Pantai Remis Kuan Seng Tai Teh (霹靂班臺關聖大帝廟)1970Temple
Kanthan Baru Guan Di Temple (拱橋關帝廟)1973Temple
Jalan Changkat Jong Guan Di Temple (安順曾吉容關帝廟)1978Temple
Simpang Guan Di Temple (太平新板關帝廟)1985Temple
Ayer Tawar Kuan Ti Temple (愛大華關公廟)1993Temple
Sitiawan Simpang Dua Guan Sheng Di Jun Miao (霹靂實兆遠二條路關聖帝君廟)1993Temple
Ipoh Da Di Gong (怡保大帝宮)2008Temple
PenangKar Yin Fee Kon (嘉應會館)1801Association
Tay Koon Oh Kongsi (帝君胡公司)1864Kongsi
Balik Pulau Liu Guan Zhang Zhao Koo Saing Wooi Koon (浮羅山背劉關張趙古城會)1870Koo Saing Wooi Koon
Penang Liu Guan Zhang Zhao Koo Saing Wooi Koon (檳城劉關張趙古城會)1872Koo Saing Wooi Koon
Tai Shan NiYang Wui Kwon (臺山寧陽會館)1831Association
Sun Wui Wui Koon (新會會館)1873Association
Penang Bukit Mertajam Berapit Kuan Tay Beow (檳城大山腳武拉必協天大帝古廟)1912Temple
Kwangtung & Tengchow Association (檳榔嶼廣東暨汀州會館)1919Association
Penang Tong Tze Tham Kuan Tee Seng Khun (柴埕後東西壇)1968Temple
Penang Bi Yun Gong (檳城碧雲宮)1972Temple
Penang Kuan Tee Biou (檳城高淵關帝廟)1979Temple
Changkat Nan Tian Gong (威南樟角南天宮)1984Temple
Pulau Zhong Yi Tang (浮羅忠義堂)1994Temple
Relau Ching Wei Than (檳城精威壇)2010Temple
Taman Dedap Xie Tian Gong (北海王裕好路協天宮)2011Temple
KedahKedah Sungai Petani Koo Saing Wooi Koon (吉打雙溪大年古城會館)1905Koo Saing Wooi Koon
Kedah Xie Tian Gong Guan Di Temple (吉打協天宮關帝廟)1992Temple
Kulim Xie Tian Gong (吉打居林協天宮)2011Temple
PerlisPersatuan Guang Dong Guan Di Miao Perlis (玻璃市廣東公會)1931Association
Kedah & Perlis Liu Guan Zhang Zhao Koo Saing Wooi Koon (吉玻劉關張趙古城會)1946Koo Saing Wooi Koon
KelantanGua Musang Guan Di Temple (話望生關帝廟)1952Temple
TerengganuTerengganu Guan Di Temple (登嘉樓關帝廟)1948Temple
PahangPahang Cameron Kuan Ti Tringkap (彭亨金馬侖直冷甲新村水口關帝廟)1947Temple
Kuantan Guan Di Temple (關丹關帝廟)1967Temple
Table A2. 15 Sin Sze Si Ya Temples in Malaysia with 13 Guan Di Worship.
Table A2. 15 Sin Sze Si Ya Temples in Malaysia with 13 Guan Di Worship.
StateYearName AddressMain DeitiesGuan Di
Johor1872Bukit Mor Sian Si Kong Temple (武吉摩仙師宮)Jalan Tempayan Emas, Kampung Bukit Mor, 84150 Parit Jawa, Muar, JohorSin Si Ya (仙師爺),
Sze Si Ya(四師爺)		Without
Malacca1890He Sheng Gong (馬六甲廣福廟和勝宮)Taman Cheng Perdana, 75250 MalaccaSze Si YaWithout
Negeri Sembilan1861Qian Gu Miao—Rasah (亞沙千古廟)Rasah, Seremban, Negeri SembilanSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya,
Kapitan Seng Meng Lee (甲必丹盛明利)		Included
Negeri Sembilan1869Sikamat Sin Sze Si Ya Temple (小甘蜜仙四師爺宮)Rasah, Seremban, Negeri SembilanSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Negeri Sembilan1892Fook Seng Kong—Titi (知知港福聖宮) Jalan, Kampung Titi Bunga, Titi, Negeri Sembilan, 71650Sin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1869Shi Ye Gong—Rawang (萬撓師爺宮)Jalan Tokong Cina, Rawang, SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1870Selangor Kajang Shen Sze She Yak Temple (加影仙四師爺宮) Lot 22, 23, Jalan Mendaling, Kajang, SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1880Sin Sze Si Ya Temple—Semenyih (士毛月仙四師爺宮)No 88 (Lot 43, Pekan Semenyih), 43500 Semenyih, SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1890Ulu Langat Cheras Sin Sze Si Ya Temple (烏魯冷嶽
呀吃仙四師爺廟)		Lot 4785, Sungai Tekali, Ulu Langat, Selangor.Sin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1891Yue Shan Shi Ye Gong (嶽山師爺宮)Jalan Merdeka, Pekan Kuala Kubu Bharu, 44000 SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1893Serendah Sin Sze Si Ya Temple (雙文丹仙四師爺宮)Jalan Tokong, Kampung Dato Harun, 48200 Serendah, SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Selangor1902Kalumpang Gu Miao (龍邦古廟)Kalumpang, 44100 Kerling, SelangorSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Kuala Lumpur1864Sin Sze Si Ya Temple (仙四師爺廟)113A, Jalan Tun H S Lee, City Centre, 50050 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala LumpurSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Kuala Lumpur1901Sungai Besi Shi Ye Temple (新場街師爺廟)Pekan Sungai Besi, 57000 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala LumpurSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included
Pahang1880Guang Fu Miao—Bentong (彭亨文冬廣福廟)Jalan Loke Yew, Bentong, PahangSin Si Ya,
Sze Si Ya		Included

Notes

1
From Fieldwork, Petaling Street, Kuala Lumpur, 13 October 2023.
2
Koo Saing Wooi Koon (古城會): Refers to ‘Ancient City Associations’ dedicated to the four sworn brothers Liu Bei, Guan Di, Zhang Fei, and Zhao Yun, where Guan Di is a key unifying deity; Kongsi (公司): While its Chinese script 公司 translates to ‘company’ in modern usage, in the historical Southeast Asian Chinese context discussed in the paper, ‘kongsi’ signifies a form of Chinese social organization or association. This study uses it to categorize a specific type of site where Guan Di is worshipped, exemplified by ‘Tay Koon Oh Kongsi’.
3
‘Fenxiang’ (分香) is a significant religious practice within Chinese folk religions, particularly prominent in the context of immigrant communities establishing new places of worship. Its core meaning is the practice of ‘dividing incense’ (or incense ash, symbolizing the deity’s spiritual efficacy or presence) from an existing, often ancestral or ‘mother’ temple, to establish a new temple or worship site in a new location.
4
To underscore the extent of Dapper’s misreading when portraying Guan Di as a ‘founder of the Chinese Empire’, readers should note that Vitey (黃帝) is revered as a legendary primogenitor of Chinese civilization, and Tzintzon (秦始皇) as the historical unifier and first Emperor of China, both roles vastly different from Guan Di, a deified general from a later era.
5
For more details, please refer to Zhang and Wang (2025).
6
For more details, please refer to Ye (2025).
7
For more details, please refer to Shi and Li (2023).
8
For more details, please refer to Kim and Sun (2024).
9
For more details, please refer to Wang et al. (2010).
10
For more details, please refer to (Schlegel 1866; Pickering 1879; Ward and Sterling 1925; Wynne 1941; Purcell 1946).
11
For more details, please refer to Appendix 4 of Cai (1987).
12
In Malaya, the main branches of the Thian ti hwui (天地會) were the powerful Ghee Hin Kongsi (義興公司) and the Hai San Society (海山公司). At Larut (Tai Ping), miners who were members of the Hai San society fought with miners who were members of the Ghee Hin society over the tin-rich fields of Kelian Pauh and Kelian Baru.
13
For more details, please refer to Ong (2013).
14
For more details, please refer to Antony (2015).
15
Guan Yu’s death at the hands of Lü Meng forged a deep-seated historical enmity between them. In juan 36, page 16, the ‘Zhiyi’ (摭遺) section of the Danyang county annals from the Guangxu Reign of the Qing Dynasty states that there were no temples dedicated to Emperor Guan within a fifty-li radius of Lücheng. According to legend, after Lü Meng’s death, he was deified as the local land god of Lücheng. It is said that whenever a temple to the God of War was built in the town, the sounds of battle would echo through the night, which is why the people of Lücheng warned each other not to build them. In one story, a traveling fortune-teller took shelter in the temple of the local land god. During the night, a violent thunderstorm erupted, and the roof tiles were blown away. The next morning, the locals saw that the flag the man carried bore an image of Guan Yu, and he was immediately expelled from the town.
16
According to Bhrigupati Singh’s analysis, to understand a deity like Thakur Baba, it is necessary to place him within the specific historical context of Central India. The prototype for this deity is a Rajput warrior who was decapitated in battle but continued to fight. However, Singh, citing historian Dirk Kolff, clarifies that ‘warrior’ here does not exclusively refer to princes or nobles with hereditary fiefdoms. Historically, this region was an area where a culture of mobile ‘war bands’ flourished, and men from various castes and tribes could become paid mercenaries (naukar) through contractual agreements. This militarized social background, full of competition, alliances, betrayal, and contractual relationships, shaped a unique cultural psychology where power is seen as regional, relationships as dynamic, and authority as something that can be challenged and negotiated. It is precisely this historical memory that gives rise to the ‘agonistic’ mode of interaction between the local people and their gods. In Singh’s depiction, these local deities exercise a form of local sovereignty within their territory (‘This is his area’). This sovereignty is not a singular, absolute rule, but a dual relationship of internal tension, simultaneously embodying the coercive and punitive aspects of ‘force’ and the negotiable and reciprocal nature of ‘contract.’
17
Fieldwork interview, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, July to November 2023.
18
Fieldwork interview, Kuala Lumpur and Johor Baru, August to October 2024.
19
According to file 132288 of the Palace Archives and Grand Council documentary archives (宮中檔及軍機處檔摺件), National Palace Museum, Taipei. For more details, please refer to Ong (2021).
20
Participatory observation from fieldwork.
21
See note 20 above.
22
Can be viewed by https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cT4tzsu8jS8 (accessed on 18 July 2025).
23
The term ‘canonization’ as used in this study is not intended to mean a static result that completely terminates or stifles all interpretation. On the contrary, this study defines it as a dynamic and often contested socio-historical process aimed at constructing and maintaining a certain ‘orthodoxy’. Its core mechanism is not merely ‘restriction’, but rather, through a series of institutionalized means (such as the establishment of sacred texts, the convening of ecumenical councils, and the development of theological systems), to channel and discipline interpretation.

References

  1. Antony, Robert 安樂博. 2015. Minjian wenxian yu jiaqing qi nian guangdong sheng huizhou fu tiandi hui qishi 民間文獻與嘉慶七年廣東省惠州府天地會起事 (Folk Documents and the Tiandihui Uprising in Huizhou Prefecture, Guangdong Province, in the Seventh Year of the Jiaqing Reign). In 《中國秘密社會與民間文化》 (Chinese Secret Society and Folk Culture). Edited by Qing History Institute at People’ s University 中國人民大學清史研究所 and the China Association for the Study of Secret Societies 中國會黨史研究會編. Fuzhou: Fujian People’s Press 福建人民出版社, pp. 28–44. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Boyer, Pascal. 2007. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bulfinch, Thomas. 1867. Bulfinch’s Mythology. Boston: Lee & Shepard. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cai, Shaoqing 蔡少卿. 1987. Zhongguo jindai huidangshi yanjiu 中國近代會黨史研究 (A Study on the History of Modern Chinese Secret Societies). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company 中華書局. [Google Scholar]
  6. Carstens, Sharon A. 2005. Histories, Cultures, Identities: Studies in Malaysian Chinese Worlds. Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 103–109. [Google Scholar]
  7. DeBernardi, Jean E. 2006. The Way that Lives in the Heart: Chinese Popular Religion and Spirit Mediums in Penang, Malaysia. Redwood: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Duara, Prasenjit. 1988. Superscribing Symbols: The Myth of Guandi, Chinese God of War. The Journal of Asian Studies 47: 778–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Feuchtwang, Stephan. 2010. The Anthropology of Religion, Charisma and Ghosts: Chinese Lessons for Adequate Theory. Berlin: De Gruyter. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gao, Lisha 高莉莎. 2020. Zhengdianhua de duoyuan hugou: Dui malaixiya maliujia guangong wenhuajie de renleixue kaocha 正典化的多元互構：對馬來西亞馬六甲關公文化節的人類學考察 (The Canonical Multiple Inter–Construction: An Anthropological Study of the Guangong Cultural Festival in Malacca, Malaysia). Guangxi Ethnic Studies 廣西民族研究 4: 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gregor, Benton 班國瑞, and Yanlan Yang 楊豔蘭. 2014. Guan Gong yu Guanyin: Liang ge Zhongguo minjian shen zai Guba de bianxing 關公與觀音:兩個中國民間神在古巴的變形 (The Marquis Guan Yu and Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva: Transformation of the Two Chinese Fold Gods in Cuba). Overseas Chinese Journal of Bagui 八桂僑刊 4: 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jia, Fayi 賈發義, and Zhixian Li 李志賢. 2018. Dongnanya huaren de Guandi chongbai—“Haishangsichouzhilu” wenhua chuanbo de yige lizheng 東南亞華人的關帝崇拜——“海上絲綢之路”文化傳播的一個例證 (Ethnic Chinese Guandi Worship in Southeast Asian: An Example of the Culture Spread of the “Maritime Silk Road”). Journal of Shanxi University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition) 山西大學學報 (哲學社會科學版) 41: 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  13. Katz, Paul R. 2008. Divine Justice: Religion and the Development of Chinese Legal Culture. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kim, Tak 金鐸, and Yongjin Sun 孫勇進. 2024. Guandi Xinyang yu Hanguo Jindai Xinxing Zongjiao Zengshan Jiao 關帝信仰與韓國近代新興宗教甑山教 (Belief in Guandi and Modern Emerging Religious Jeungsanism in South Korea). Literature and Culture 文學與文化 1: 119–27. [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, Seunghye. 2020. Prayers for Divine Protection: The Temple God (1885) of Heungcheonsa Temple and the Cult of Guan Yu. Korea Journal 60: 180–218. [Google Scholar]
  16. Leyton, Cristian Alvarado. 2018. Ritual and Fictive Kinship. In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Waltham: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  17. Li, Lian 李利安. 2008. Guanyin xinyang de yuanyuan yu chuanbo 觀音信仰的淵源與傳播 (The Origin and Spread of Guanyin Belief). Yunnan: China Religious Culture Publisher 宗教文化出版社. [Google Scholar]
  18. Liu, Zhiqiang 劉志強. 2025. “Zhongguo gushi” zai dongnanya wenxue zhong de zhengyin yu chanshi—Yi zaoqi minjian gushi he wenxue mingzhu wei zhong xin de kao cha ‘中國故事’ 在東南亞文學中的徵引與闡釋——以早期民間故事和文學名著為中心的考察 (The Citation and Interpretation of “Chinese Stories” in Southeast Asian Literature: An Examination Centered on Early Folktales and Masterpieces of Literature). Comparative Literature in China 中國比較文學 2: 58–70. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mai, Xiaoxia 麥嘯霞. 1940. Guangdong xiju shilue 廣東戲劇史略 (A Brief History of Yueju Opera). Guangzhou: Guangzhou Municipal Opera Reform Commission 廣州市戲曲改革委員會. [Google Scholar]
  20. Martini, Martino. 1655. Novus atlas Sinensis a Martino Martinus, Soc. Iesu descriptus et serenissimo Archiduci Leopoldo Guilielmo Austriaco dedicatus. Amsterdam: Blaeu. [Google Scholar]
  21. McGuire, Meredith B. 2008. Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ong, Seng Huat 王琛發. 2013. Taoyuan jieyi: Nanyang Tiandihui dui Guan Di xinyang de jicheng、chuanbo yu yingxiang 桃園結義：南洋天地會對關帝信仰的繼承、傳播與影響 (Peach Garden Oath: The Inheritance, Spread, and Influence of Guan Di Belief by Nanyang Tiandihui). In 關帝信仰與現代社會研究論文集 (Research Papers on Guan DiBelief and Modem Society). Edited by Dengfu Xiao 蕭登福 and Cuifeng Lin 林翠鳳. Taipei: Yu-he Culture Publisher Ltd. 宇河文化出版有限公司, pp. 277–308. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ong, Seng Huat 王琛發. 2021. Bao wo zuhun: Qingmo Minchu bincheng guangfugong yu pingzhanggongguan de shendao shejiao 保我族魂：清末民初檳城廣福宮與平章公館的神道設教 (Sustaining the Chinese Spirit: The Teachings of the Heavenly Sacred Way in the History of Kong Hock Keong and Penang Chinese Town Hall during Late Qing Dynasty and Early Republic of China). Fujian-Taiwan Cultural Research 閩臺文化研究 3: 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  24. Peng, Rui 彭睿. 2020. Guandi Xinyang de zongjiao shehuixue yanjiu——Shehui hezuo shijiao xia de chifeng yundong關帝信仰的宗教社會學研究——社會合作視角下的敕封運動 (The Religious Sociology Study of Guandi Faith—The Edict Movement From the Perspective of Social Cooperation). Religious Studies 宗教學研究 3: 265–73. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pickering, William Alexander. 1879. Chinese secret societies. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 3: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  26. Purcell, Victor. 1946. Malaya: Outline of a Colony. Nashville: Thomas Nelson and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schlegel, Gustaaf. 1866. Thian Ti Hwui: The Hung-league, Or Heaven-earth-league, a Secret Society with the Chinese in China and India. Batavia: Lange & Company. [Google Scholar]
  28. Shi, Cangjin 石滄金, and Yanyi Li 李彥佚. 2023. Haiwai huaren huaguang dadi Xinyang tanxi 海外華人華光大帝信仰探析 (An Analysis of the Overseas Chinese Belief in Huaguang Dadi). Religious Studies 宗教學研究 1: 205–14. [Google Scholar]
  29. Singh, Bhrigupati. 2015. Poverty and the Quest for Life: Spiritual and Material Striving in Rural India. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tan, Chee Beng. 2018. Chinese Religion in Malaysia: Temples and Communities. Leiden: Brill, vol. 12. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ter Haar, Barend J. 2017. Guan Yu: The Religious Afterlife of a Failed Hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wang, Gungwu. 1991. China and the Chinese Overseas. Singapore: Times Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, Jianchuan 王見川, Khin Wah Soo 蘇慶華, and Wenxing Liu 劉文星. 2010. Jindai de guandi Xinyang yu jingdian: Jian tan qi zai xin, ma de fazhan 近代的關帝信仰與經典:兼談其在新,馬的發展 (Modern Guandi Belief and Classics: The Development in Singapore and Malaysia). Taipei: Bo Young Cultural Enterprise Inc. 博揚文化事業有限公司. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wang, Xingya 王興亞. 2016. Qingdai Henan beike ziliao (di san ce) 清代河南碑刻資料(第三冊) (Epigraphic Materials of Henan in the Qing Dynasty). Beijing: The Commercial Press 商務印書館, vol. 3, pp. 223–24. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, Zhaoyuan 王趙遠. 2022. Kua zuqun de zongjiao chuancheng yu bianqian—Malaixiya huaren na du gong chongbai de li shi yanjiu 跨族群的宗教傳承與變遷——馬來西亞華人拿督公崇拜的歷時研究 (Continuation and Change in Trans-ethnic Religions: A Diachronic Study of Datuk Gong Worship among Malaysian Chinese). Journal of Overseas Chinese History Studies 華僑華人歷史研究 1: 54–64. [Google Scholar]
  36. Wang, Zhaoyuan, Danny Wong Tze Ken, and Welyne Jeffrey Jehom. 2020. The Alien Communal Patron Deity: A comparative study of the Datuk Gong worship among Chinese communities in Malaysia. Indonesia and the Malay World 48: 206–24. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ward, John Sebastian Marlow, and William George Sterling. 1925. The Hung Society or the Society of Heaven and Earth. London: Baskerville Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Watson, James L. 1985. Standardizing the gods: The promotion of T’ien Hou (‘Empress of Heaven’) along the South China coast, 960–1960. In Popular Culture in Late Imperial China. Berkley: University of California Press, pp. 292–324. [Google Scholar]
  39. Weng, Jiayin. 2001. Images and Imagination: Customs of Han and Indigenous Peoples in Taiwan as Seen in 17th Century Dutch Paintings. In International Symposium on the Image of Taiwan During the Dutch Period: The Historic Interpretation from Time to Space. Tainan City: National Museum of Taiwan History Preparatory Office, pp. 66–71. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wynne, Mervyn Llewelyn. 1941. Triad and Tabut: A Survey of the Origin and Diffusion of Chinese and Mohamedan Secret Societies in the Peninsular Malaysia, A.D. 1800–1935. Singapore: Government Printing Office. [Google Scholar]
  41. Xiao, Yishan 蕭一山. 1969. Jindai mimi shehui shiliao 近代秘密社會史料 (Historical Materials of Modern Secret Societies). Taipei: Wen Hai Press Company 文海出版社. [Google Scholar]
  42. Xu, Dishan 許地山. 1999. Fuji mixin de yanjiu 扶乩迷信的研究 (The Study of Superstitions). Beijing: The Commercial Press 商業印書館. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ye, Mingsheng 葉明生. 2025. “Mazu” mingcheng de xingcheng yu chuanbo kaoding “媽祖 ”名稱的形成與傳播考訂 (The Study on the Formation and Dissemination of the Name “Mazu”). Studies in World Religions 世界宗教研究 2: 53–63+129. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yen, Ching-Hwang. 1986. A Social History of the Chinese in Singapore and Malaya 1800–1911. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zhang, Beibei, Xiaping Shu, and Hongwen Liu. 2024. From Historical Memory to Cultural Identity: The Construction of Archetypal Symbols for the Statues and Images of Mazu. Religions 15: 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, Mengyu 張夢雨. 2023. Qingdai Taiwan diqu fenlei xiedou yu minjian xinyang de hudong guanxi tanxi 清代臺灣地區分類械鬥與民間信仰的互動關係探析 (Research on Classified Fights and the Folk Religions in Taiwan in the Qing Dynasty). Folklore Studies 民俗研究 5: 101–10+159. [Google Scholar]
  47. Zhang, Ni 張妮, and Peixuan Wang 王沛軒. 2025. Shiliuqi shiji Guan Gong xingxiang zai xifang de kua wenhua chuanbo 十六七世紀關公形象在西方的跨文化傳播 (The cross-cultural spread of the image of Lord Guan in the West in the 16th and 17th centuries). Fine Arts 美術 2: 16–25. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zheng, Tuyou 鄭土有. 1994. Guangong Xinyang 關公信仰 (Guangong Faith). Beijing: Xueyuan Press 學苑出版社. [Google Scholar]
Religions 16 01303 g001
Figure 1. A rescue vehicle on the streets of Shah Alam, its body printed with an image of Guan Gong holding his blade. Image by author.
Figure 1. A rescue vehicle on the streets of Shah Alam, its body printed with an image of Guan Gong holding his blade. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g001
Religions 16 01303 g002
Figure 2. The 2023 MIGGCF procession passing through the main arch of Petaling Street, Kuala Lumpur.1 Image by author.
Figure 2. The 2023 MIGGCF procession passing through the main arch of Petaling Street, Kuala Lumpur.1 Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g002
Religions 16 01303 g003
Figure 3. Distribution GIS of 160 Guan Di Worship Sites on West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Image by author.
Figure 3. Distribution GIS of 160 Guan Di Worship Sites on West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g003
Religions 16 01303 g004
Figure 4. Olfert Dapper. 1670 Quan tekong. ©National Museum of Taiwan History. Reproduced from Weng (2001).
Figure 4. Olfert Dapper. 1670 Quan tekong. ©National Museum of Taiwan History. Reproduced from Weng (2001).
Religions 16 01303 g004
Religions 16 01303 g005
Figure 5. Martini, Martino, Suchuen, Imperii Sinarum Provincia Sexta. Reproduced from Amsterdam: Joh. Blaeu, 1655. Call Number: MAP Ra 300 Plate 7.
Figure 5. Martini, Martino, Suchuen, Imperii Sinarum Provincia Sexta. Reproduced from Amsterdam: Joh. Blaeu, 1655. Call Number: MAP Ra 300 Plate 7.
Religions 16 01303 g005
Religions 16 01303 g006
Figure 6. The Balik Pulau Koo Saing Wooi Koon. Image by author.
Figure 6. The Balik Pulau Koo Saing Wooi Koon. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g006
Religions 16 01303 g007
Figure 7. Reproduced from Taipei, National Palace Museum, Box no. 2751; Packet 37, no. 53908, dated the 21st day of the 4th month of the 22nd year of the Jiaqing reign. ©National Palace Museum.
Figure 7. Reproduced from Taipei, National Palace Museum, Box no. 2751; Packet 37, no. 53908, dated the 21st day of the 4th month of the 22nd year of the Jiaqing reign. ©National Palace Museum.
Religions 16 01303 g007
Religions 16 01303 g008
Figure 8. (a) Illustration of Guan Di used in Tiandihui initiation ceremony (Accession No.: 1996-02824); ©National Museum of Singapore. (b) Illustration of Ghee Hin Kongsi Lodge (Accession No.: 1996-02889). ©National Museum of Singapore.
Figure 8. (a) Illustration of Guan Di used in Tiandihui initiation ceremony (Accession No.: 1996-02824); ©National Museum of Singapore. (b) Illustration of Ghee Hin Kongsi Lodge (Accession No.: 1996-02889). ©National Museum of Singapore.
Religions 16 01303 g008
Religions 16 01303 g009
Figure 9. (a) The Lorenz Curve of the Distribution of Guan Di Worship Sites by State (The analysis is based on 89 worship sites across 12 states). (b) The Nearest Neighbor Index (NNI) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites. Image by author.
Figure 9. (a) The Lorenz Curve of the Distribution of Guan Di Worship Sites by State (The analysis is based on 89 worship sites across 12 states). (b) The Nearest Neighbor Index (NNI) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g009
Religions 16 01303 g010
Figure 10. KDE (a) and SDE (b) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (1800–1957). Image by author.
Figure 10. KDE (a) and SDE (b) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (1800–1957). Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g010
Religions 16 01303 g011
Figure 11. KDE (a) and SDE (b) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (1958–2025). Image by author.
Figure 11. KDE (a) and SDE (b) Analysis of Guan Di Worship Sites on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia (1958–2025). Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g011
Religions 16 01303 g012
Figure 12. The Fenxiang relationship between Fujian Province, China, and Peninsular Malaysia. Image by author.
Figure 12. The Fenxiang relationship between Fujian Province, China, and Peninsular Malaysia. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g012
Religions 16 01303 g013
Figure 13. Two Guan Di Statues at the Nine Emperor Rituals. Image by author.
Figure 13. Two Guan Di Statues at the Nine Emperor Rituals. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g013
Religions 16 01303 g014
Figure 14. Photo of Mr Pang’s visit to Haizhou Guan Di Temple in 2000. Image by author.
Figure 14. Photo of Mr Pang’s visit to Haizhou Guan Di Temple in 2000. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g014
Religions 16 01303 g015
Figure 15. The original statue of Guan Di in Malacca Lui Chiew Huay Kuan.20 Image by author.
Figure 15. The original statue of Guan Di in Malacca Lui Chiew Huay Kuan.20 Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g015
Religions 16 01303 g016
Figure 16. Statue of Guan Di in Batu Gajah Kuan Tay Temple.21 Image by author.
Figure 16. Statue of Guan Di in Batu Gajah Kuan Tay Temple.21 Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g016
Religions 16 01303 g017
Figure 17. The statue of Guan Di Wen Chang in Sin Sze Si Ya Temple, Kuala Lumpur. Image by author.
Figure 17. The statue of Guan Di Wen Chang in Sin Sze Si Ya Temple, Kuala Lumpur. Image by author.
Religions 16 01303 g017
Religions 16 01303 g018
Figure 18. Shrine to Da Er Ye Bo within a Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong. Image by author. Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong.
Figure 18. Shrine to Da Er Ye Bo within a Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong. Image by author. Tampoi Kuan Ti Kong.
Religions 16 01303 g018
Table 1. Distribution by Spatial Type (Total 89 Sites).
Table 1. Distribution by Spatial Type (Total 89 Sites).
Spatial TypePenangPerakSelangorMalaccaNegeri SembilanJohorKuala
Lumpur		KedahPerlisKelantanTerengganuPahangTotalPercentage (%)
Temple810207576201126977.5%
Association4003020010001011.2%
Koo Saing Wooi Koon21100001100066.7%
Organisation00000200000022.2%
Kongsi10000000000011.1%
Clan00000010000011.1%
State Total1511211051173211289100%
Table 2. Distribution by Establishment Period (Total 89 Sites).
Table 2. Distribution by Establishment Period (Total 89 Sites).
Establishment PeriodPenangPerakSelangorMalaccaNegeri
Sembilan		JohorKuala LumpurKedahPerlisKelantanTerengganuPahangTotalPercentage
(%)
1800–185020020000000044.5%
1850–19005202111000001213.5%
1900–19503250012120111820.2%
1950–200046145253101014247.2%
2000–20251121241100001314.6%
State Total1511211051173211289100%
Table 3. Examples of Guan Di Worship Spaces on the West Coast.
Table 3. Examples of Guan Di Worship Spaces on the West Coast.
NameTimeOrigin/Dialect GroupMain and Accompanying DeitiesFestival Day(s)
Malacca Fui Chui Association(Formerly Hai San Society)1805HakkaGuan Sheng Di Jun, Guan Ping, Zhou Cang24th day of 6th lunar month
Penang
Kar Yin Fee Kon		1801HakkaGuan Di, Ancestors, Fellow Provincials13th day of 5th lunar month
Penang Tai Shan NiYang Wui Kwon1831CantoneseGuan Sheng Di Jun, Guan Ping, Zhou Cang, Ancestors, Fellow Provincials24th day of 6th lunar month
Penang Soon Tuck Wooi Kwon1837
(Guan Di enshrined 1885)		CantoneseGuan Sheng Di Jun24th day of 6th lunar month
Penang Tay Koon Oh Kongsi1864HokkienXie Tian Da Di, Nian Ba Lang Gong, Fellow Provincials13th day of 5th lunar month
Penang Koo Saing Wooi Koon1872Four Surnames AllianceZhao Lie Di, Han Shou Ting Hou, Heng Hou, Shun Ping Hou, Four Surnames AncestorsBirthdays of Liu, Guan, Zhang, Zhao
Selangor/KL Kwong Siew Association1888CantoneseGuan Sheng Di Jun, Guan Ping, Zhou Cang24th day of 6th lunar month
Malacca Kuan Teh Beo Gi Ho Hoey Temple 1893HokkienXie Tian Da Di, Guan Ping, Zhou Cang13th day of 5th lunar month (major), 24th day of 6th lunar month
Malacca Lui Chiew Huay Kuan1898LeizhouGuan Sheng Di Jun, Guan Ping, Zhou Cang, Bai Ma Lao Shi Gong (白馬老師公), Ancestors, Fellow Provincials13th day of 5th lunar month
Data from fieldwork.
Table 4. Examples of Fenxiang Paths for some Hokkien Guan Di Temples.
Table 4. Examples of Fenxiang Paths for some Hokkien Guan Di Temples.
NameTimeOrigin TempleDialect GroupFenxiang Path
Selangor Jenjarom Tung Loh Temple1910Ba She Tong Luo Temple, Hushan Town, Anxi, Quanzhou, FujianHokkienVillager Chen Bing from Hushan brought incense from Ba She Tong Luo Temple
Johor Bahru Tampoi Guan Di Miao1920Qi Zhai Temple, Hutou Town, Anxi County, Quanzhou, FujianHokkienAnxi native Soo Hng Hok enshrined incense from his hometown temple in his house after settling down
Cheras Batu 11 Sin Ann Meow1930Fujian Province, ChinaHokkienMr.Xie from Fujian brought incense seeking Guan Di’s protection
Gombak Ju Xian Miao1940Ju Xing Lou Guan Di Temple (聚星樓關帝廟), Chencuoqian, Zhongshan Village, Shangqing Town, Anxi County, Quanzhou, FujianHokkienPioneers brought a divided incense burner from Ju Xing Lou
Old Klang Road Zhen Nan Temple1950Ju Xing Lou Guan Di Temple, Chencuoqian, Zhongshan Village, Shangqing Town, Anxi County, Quanzhou, FujianHokkienIncense divided from Gombak Ju Xian Miao
Data from fieldwork.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, X.; Ong, S.K.; Wong, D.T.K. Mechanisms of Creativity: Interpretive Malleability in Guan Di Worship on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Religions 2025, 16, 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101303

AMA Style

Li X, Ong SK, Wong DTK. Mechanisms of Creativity: Interpretive Malleability in Guan Di Worship on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Religions. 2025; 16(10):1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Xiang, Siew Kian Ong, and Danny Tze Ken Wong. 2025. "Mechanisms of Creativity: Interpretive Malleability in Guan Di Worship on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia" Religions 16, no. 10: 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101303

APA Style

Li, X., Ong, S. K., & Wong, D. T. K. (2025). Mechanisms of Creativity: Interpretive Malleability in Guan Di Worship on the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Religions, 16(10), 1303. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16101303

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop